Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: Since I came to this House 30 years ago, I have always felt that the House is at its best when it is united. In order that unity can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish the office of Speaker on Sunday 21 June. This will allow the House to proceed to elect a new Speaker on Monday 22 June. That is all I have to say on this matter.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cyprus

Bob Spink: What assessment he has made of recent progress in reaching international agreement on the governance of Cyprus.

David Miliband: Mr. Speaker, the whole House will respect your wish that we proceed with our business today. We shall make our tributes at a later date.
	The current negotiations represent the best opportunity for Cypriots to reunify Cyprus. We fully support the courageous efforts of the two leaders; their joint commitment is a key strength of the process. They have made steady progress, but it is important that momentum is increased. A settlement will deliver major economic, social and political benefits for all Cypriots.

Bob Spink: Would the Foreign Secretary care to join me in paying the warmest possible tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, and in thanking you for your service—a very honourable service—to this House and this country over many years? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] And I thank you personally, Mr. Speaker.
	Recent research shows that the majority of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots want their respective leaders to reach a mutually acceptable settlement through the current peace process. What can the Foreign Secretary do to help them succeed? Such a settlement would not only be in the interests of everybody on the island; it would also be very much in the interests of Turkey, particularly given its ambitions to join the European Union.

David Miliband: I fear that some of what I said at the beginning may have been lost in the hubbub.
	Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the House will fully respect your wish that we save our tributes for a future date and that we proceed with our business today.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that the spirit of dedication to solving the Cyprus problem, a spirit that has been evident in the 28 meetings between the two leaders, represents precisely the sort of determination that we need. There will need to be compromises on all sides, and in my meeting with the Cypriot Foreign Minister later today, I will take forward the Government's determination to help promote a solution.

David Lepper: Mr. Speaker, may I add my tribute to those that have already been expressed?
	As the Foreign Secretary will know, one of the abiding problems in Cyprus is the issue of property rights and property ownership. In the light of April's European Court of Justice judgment on the case brought by Mr. Apostolides, will the Foreign Secretary consider, if he has not done so already, revising information on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website to ensure that anyone contemplating buying property in northern Cyprus realises that there are dangers in doing that? They might well be buying what many would consider stolen property.

David Miliband: The Foreign Office guidance speaks to the unique circumstances that exist in Cyprus at the moment. It sets out all the issues at stake for anyone interested in property in the area.
	The so-called Orams judgment is now going to the Court of Appeal, so it is important that we politicians are careful about what we say on the subject. I can say, however, that all the developments point to the need for leaders from both communities to get to grips with the need for a political settlement, including on the vital property issue. I will be urging that point on all players in this important question.

Malcolm Rifkind: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the European Union made a historic mistake in accepting Cyprus as a member while the island remained deeply divided between its Greek and Turkish communities? Did that not help the Greek Cypriots in their decision to reject the Annan peace plan in 2004? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that lessons have to be learned from that with regard to any future membership applications from countries such as Kosovo, Bosnia or the republics in the Caucasus?

David Miliband: I certainly believe that lessons should be learned from previous enlargement. The biggest lesson is that enlargement has made the European Union stronger, not weaker. As we look at the cases of Kosovo and the other countries mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is important that we should remember the force of the European Union as a power for stability as well as for democracy on its eastern borders. I also recognise that it is vital that the European Union should play its role in ensuring that all understand that now is the best opportunity since the 1970s for a proper settlement in Cyprus. That is certainly what we are dedicated to, and I believe that the rest of the European Union is as well.

Simon Hughes: Given that, as the Foreign Secretary says, there is now the best prospect of a solution because both sides are willing to continue the talks, does he accept that neither side should be deflected by any interpretation of the election results in the north of the island or the local elections on the mainland of Turkey? Can he assure us that the European Union and the UN will make that the priority, which does not appear to have been the case in recent years?

David Miliband: It is important, if I may say so, to go beyond what the hon. Gentleman has said. There needs to be new and extra momentum in the drive for a settlement, precisely because this is the year when a settlement needs to be made. The UN special representative—a former Foreign Minister of Australia, Alexander Downer—reported to the Security Council on 30 April. The message that went out very clearly from that meeting, from all members of the Security Council, was that all sides needed to recognise their responsibility to ensure that the second round of talks, which are just about to restart, really engage the spirit of compromise that will be essential if this opportunity is to be grasped. That is not to be interfered with by election results in any part of that region. The statements from Turkey, as well as from Mr. Talat, speak to that point.

Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend will know that one of the big issues is the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus. Is he aware that UNFICYP—the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus—has estimated the true number of Turkish troops at below 20,000, not in the high 30,000s as estimated, or pronounced, by both sides? Does he agree that one of the best things would be for Turkey to come clean about the actual number of troops, which is far lower than it claims, as that is one of the measures that are desperately needed on the island to build and maintain confidence while the news blackout on the talks proceeds?

David Miliband: It is certainly the case that there needs to be proper transparency on all sides. I discussed that with the Turkish European Union negotiator when he visited London two weeks ago. It is important that we keep the rhetoric down, that we keep asserting that we want to facilitate and support a settlement that is agreed on by the communities in Cyprus, and that all the regional powers make their contribution. Transparency and clarity will be vital at every stage.

Robert Key: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that it is necessary to apply all possible assistance to this process, because it is important not only for the people of Cyprus but for the people of Turkey and Greece, both of which we need in NATO, and for countries such as Macedonia and the other Balkan states, which are pursuing resolutions of ancient conflicts?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The continued conflict is not just a problem for the residents of Cyprus. It blocks the sort of co-operation that will be essential not only in NATO but in the EU—an EU that I believe, and the Government believe, needs to include Turkey; I think that that is also the position of the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. That is a good reason to dedicate ourselves very strongly to this process. However, there is a further important reason: the status quo is not sustainable as a basis for a long-term resolution; that must be based on the sort of political settlement that hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise is absolutely essential.

Edward O'Hara: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I agree with everything that he says about the need for a solution in Cyprus, and I hear what he says about talking to the Turkish Foreign Minister. Does he agree that although the solution must come through direct negotiations between the two sides in Cyprus—Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot—the real key to the solution is in Ankara? What is he doing actively to persuade Turkey that it must use its influence, or stop using its influence negatively and use it positively, to effect a solution in Cyprus?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks with a lot of experience and expertise on this question. I think that the fairest thing to say is that it takes two to tango. It will need not only Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish Government, but Greek Cypriots and the Greek Government, to support this outcome. All our diplomatic efforts—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has visited Cyprus twice, and I will be visiting Turkey and Greece at the end of this month—are dedicated to ensuring that there is genuine compromise, because that is the only way in which the problem will be resolved. No one wants a repeat of the 2004 referendum result in the south of the island; that is why we are working for a solution.

Lisbon Treaty

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What his most recent assessment is of progress in the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty; and if he will make a statement.

David Evennett: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

Desmond Swayne: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty.

Caroline Flint: The Czech Senate voted in favour of ratification of the Lisbon treaty on 6 May. That means that 26 European Union member states have now completed their parliamentary stages of ratification. All EU countries have agreed that the aim is to complete ratification and bring the Lisbon treaty into force this year.
	The Lisbon treaty clearly sets out that the treaty shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the deposit of the instrument of ratification by the last member state. That is in article 357. The treaty can come into force only if all 27 member states have ratified it. Discussions on implementation of the Lisbon treaty have not restarted in Brussels.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister agree with the former Member for Halifax, Alice Mahon? One of her main reasons for leaving the Labour party was the fact that she thought that it had broken its solemn promise to give the British people their say in a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

Caroline Flint: I do not agree with my hon. Friend the former Member for Halifax. The Government said that we would have a referendum when the EU was proposing a constitution. That was then dumped when the French and Dutch voted against it. This is a treaty, and neither Tory nor Labour Governments have ever had a referendum on treaties of this nature. Maastricht is one good example. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who in comparing the Lisbon treaty with the Maastricht treaty said that it was a "far less important" document than Maastricht.

David Evennett: Can the Minister confirm categorically that any changes to the Lisbon treaty for any country would mean that the treaty needed to be re-ratified? Would the Government then hold a referendum on this matter?

Caroline Flint: I think that it is dead if people vote against it.

Desmond Swayne: With the possible exception of you, Mr. Speaker, virtually every Member of this House was elected on a solemn pledge to put the European constitution to a referendum. If some Members have abrogated that promise on the spurious grounds that the treaty is not the constitution, does the Minister think the electorate will ever trust them again?

Caroline Flint: It is not a constitution, it is a treaty. It is about ensuring that the European Union is fit for purpose with 27 member states. It is to streamline and make more effective the way in which the European Union works. I would have thought that that was something that right hon. and hon. Members of all parties would agree with.

Mike Gapes: Now that the Czech Senate and Polish Parliament have both voted to ratify this treaty, and now that we are in such a position that the parties that are in alliance with putative far-right, demagogic, emotionally anti-homosexual or racist parties in Europe are also voting for the Lisbon treaty, does not that make a mockery of the policies of the Conservative party?

Caroline Flint: I very much welcome the fact that the ratification of the treaty through the parliamentary measures in the Czech Republic has taken place. To respond to my hon. Friend's point, I think that the shadow Foreign Secretary, in hunting around Europe for allies, is in danger of becoming a Willy-no-mates.

Doug Henderson: May I say to my right hon. Friend that if the policies that have been argued for by some Opposition Members, and their antics, were ever implemented as the policy of this nation, not only would Britain be completely isolated in Europe and beyond, but the economic, foreign and defence policy of this country would be undermined by those silly schoolboys?

Caroline Flint: I agree with my hon. Friend. There has never been a more important time to realise the added value that we get from being part of the European Union. Whether on the economic crisis that we all face, climate change or our future security, the Opposition's policies would lead us only to isolation. Those are not just my words, but those of leaders of their own—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps we will leave their leaders to deal with that.

Gisela Stuart: Notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with my party about holding a referendum, has the Minister taken legal advice? Once the treaty is ratified, surely any promise to hold a post-ratification referendum in this country is meaningless.

Caroline Flint: I appreciate my hon. Friend's question. My understanding is that, should the Conservative party be in a position to try to leave, it would have to renegotiate its relationship with the European Union. That would be a disaster for families and businesses in the United Kingdom and for our future security prospects, as well as for the other ways in which we benefit from our co-operation and negotiating stance at the European Union table.

Ian Taylor: Does the Minister understand that, although we are waiting on the Irish, Czech and Polish Presidents as far as the Lisbon treaty is concerned, and we can continue to wait, the key issue is that is that Europe needs to be more organised, not less, in our uncertain world? It needs more cohesive action on foreign affairs, the environment and energy. It needs to work much more closely together for a common security policy, and it needs a common approach to countries such as Russia and to the middle east. Will she try to get that message across to the British people?

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to join us in getting that message across. He is right that it is important that the European Union can reform itself to be better equipped to deal with the issues of the day. When the EU is focused on the issues that matter to families and businesses, and looks outwards instead of engaging in navel gazing, it can deliver for not only British families but other families throughout the European Union. That is the message that I will endeavour to get out, and I hope that we can have a more mature debate about added value. No institution is perfect—this one is not and the European Union is not—but we must have a mature debate about what it delivers. That delivery is real, tangible and positively affects the lives of Britons throughout the United Kingdom.

Mark Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the remarks of the Swedish Prime Minister, who said, "You need friends in Europe and strong support; you can't do it on your own"?

Caroline Flint: He is right. We can add to that the remarks of Angela Merkel, who said:
	"We refuse to extend our hand to those who reject the Lisbon treaty... and who at the same time speak of enlargement."
	She is talking about her sister party for now—the Tory party.

Iain Duncan Smith: As someone who has voted constantly for referendums, including on Maastricht—it was a great mistake of those on my side not to grant one, but that is neither here nor there—may I remind the right hon. Lady that the Government have constantly talked about Europe and the European Union being made up of nation states, which have their own authority within this construct? Does she therefore think that it is right that, just because the Irish voted the wrong way—according to Europe—they should be bullied into voting the right way?

Caroline Flint: Absolutely no bullying of the Irish is taking place. The Irish Government decided of their own accord to go back to the European Council with their road map of how they wanted to handle the situation. That is a matter for them. Ultimately, ratification of the Lisbon treaty requires the agreement of all 27 member states. Twenty-six have gone through their parliamentary procedures, and the Irish have still to make progress and resolve the matter. They are getting on with that, and we are getting on with what we have to do—focus on the big issues to which Europe has to attend, such as climate change and the economy.

Eric Joyce: Can my right hon. Friend estimate the cost of a referendum?

Caroline Flint: I understand that the cost of a referendum would be approximately that of a general election—around £70 million to £80 million.

Mark Francois: The Minister needs to have a word with the Prime Minister, because he has referred in public to the Lisbon treaty as the European constitution, so if he can admit it, why can she not do so? We know that the whole House needs to reconnect with the British people. Would an important way of encouraging that process be for the Government now finally to grant a referendum on the European constitution, which is what all three parties solemnly promised in their 2005 general election manifestos?

Caroline Flint: I am not going to repeat what I have said about the fact that we are talking about a treaty, not a constitution. Parliament spent many, many days discussing the different aspects of that and it came to an agreed position. However, we should also think about how we use our energy and time to promote what the European Union delivers. I have had the good fortune to go around the country and see people who have real jobs and real opportunities as a result of that membership. There are some positive stories to tell that make a difference to families and businesses. The approach of the hon. Gentleman and his party is narrow and blinkered and is not in the best interests of families and businesses in Britain.

Colombia

Jim Sheridan: What recent reports he has received on numbers of civilians allegedly killed out of combat by paramilitary forces in Colombia in 2007 and 2008.

Sandra Osborne: What recent reports he has received of the number of civilians allegedly killed out of combat by paramilitary forces in Colombia in 2007 and 2008.

Gillian Merron: The 2008 report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights highlighted murders of civilians by illegal armed groups, including regrouping paramilitaries. The problem of impunity makes it difficult for the UN—or, indeed, any other organisation—to identify exact numbers of civilian deaths or those responsible for such crimes. That is why we have made tackling impunity a new priority for our work in Colombia.

Jim Sheridan: On a recent trip to Colombia by parliamentarians, trade unionists and human rights activists, we saw tangible evidence of young men being killed by paramilitaries and those in the military on the pretext that they were terrorists. Young men were being taken from their homes and killed, and dressed up in terrorist uniforms, in order for paramilitaries and those in the military to be given a bonus—a grotesque practice—for killing terrorists. We saw the evidence with our own eyes. Given the fact that that is being done with British taxpayers' money, is it not time that we reviewed the military aid that we give to that country?

Gillian Merron: First, I am aware of the recent visit that my hon. Friend and others made to Colombia, but let me put it on record that British taxpayers' money is not being used for the situation that has been described, which is to be condemned. Indeed, it never has been used in that way. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we repeatedly call on the Colombian Government to address the threat from all illegal armed groups, including paramilitaries, in accordance with international humanitarian law. Perhaps I could also remind the House that on 30 March, a written ministerial statement was issued that explained that we would be ceasing our bilateral human rights project with the Colombian defence forces, the reason being that we had achieved our aim of setting out a strategy, so it is now down to them to implement it. However, I would be glad to receive any of the evidence to which he referred.

Sandra Osborne: Does the Minister agree that it is important that there are organisations that can look into extra-judicial murders? Is she aware that representatives of the Colombian Government seek to stigmatise and demonise such organisations, including the foreign non-governmental organisation Justice for Colombia and the British MPs and trade unionists who visited recently? Does she agree that that does not speak of a Government who understand the need for civil society and legitimate opposition in a democratic society?

Gillian Merron: I am visiting Colombia, and I am due to arrive tomorrow. A main part of my message will be that civil society is indeed part of the answer to Colombia's challenges, not part of the problem. I can assure my hon. Friend that, as I am sure she is aware, we visit those in danger, speak out in support of civil society and fund projects, for example, working with journalists to encourage free media. Indeed, the new work on tackling impunity on which we are embarking is focused on bringing to justice those who commit crimes against people such as trade unionists, those in civil society and indigenous people, and we will continue to do that.

Gary Streeter: Given that many of the drugs that find their way into the United Kingdom from across the Atlantic and through west Africa emanate from Colombia, may I encourage the Minister to continue her Government's work of engagement with the Colombian Government to try to bring about better governance in that country? I appreciate that such work is full of difficulties and challenges; none the less, it is crucial to every citizen in the United Kingdom.

Gillian Merron: I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's views. My constituents, and those of every hon. Member, want to see less drug availability on the streets, and I am glad to say that the Serious Organised Crime Agency announced figures last week that showed considerable progress on seizure and on preventing drugs, including cocaine, from coming into the country. We now know that less cocaine is available on our streets, that is has become more expensive and that its purity has declined. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the battle goes on and we will continue to make our very best efforts, working with all partners, including the Colombian Government.

Mark Pritchard: While there is room for improvements in human rights in Colombia, does the Minister agree that the Government of President Uribe have made some progress? Indeed, the number of kidnappings, killings and extrajudicial killings has gone down considerably over the past 12 months alone. On her forthcoming trip, will the Minister pay tribute to the work of the courts in bringing the killers of many people to justice? I wish her every success on her visit.

Gillian Merron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks. This country will certainly continue to help. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that
	"it is vital that the international community continues to help",
	and we will indeed do so, along with other countries and with our partners in civil society. As hon. Members have said, human rights are fundamental to security and to good governance, and we will continue to make progress. It is true that we are seeing less influence by groups such as FARC in the urban areas, and there has been a commitment by the Colombian Government. However, the other truth is that implementation on the ground is weak and there are still very serious human rights challenges, but we will continue to press ahead and to work with the Colombian Government and others to improve the situation.

Ian Davidson: When the Minister goes to Colombia, will she speak to representatives of British companies there to ensure that they are abiding by the highest standards of labour relations and, in particular, that they are willing to recognise and work with trade unions?

Gillian Merron: I shall be very happy to meet my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members, on my return to discuss such matters. I can tell him that I shall be meeting the representative body of the trade unions in Colombia, CUT. Our work with British companies in Colombia—and in other countries across the world—is of the highest importance, and we seek to ensure the highest possible standards.

Russia-Georgia Relations

David Jones: What recent assessment he has made of the implications for UK policy of the state of relations between Russia and Georgia.

Caroline Flint: Relations remain tense following the August 2008 war. Russia has not complied with all its August and September commitments, and it has blocked consensus on renewal of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission. Russia and Georgia should work to intensify the Geneva talks and refrain from taking destabilising action. We will engage with Russia when that is in our interests, and continue to support Georgia's economic and political reform.

David Jones: The near collapse of the talks in Geneva yesterday highlights the extent to which the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia remains an impediment to the improvement of relations between Georgia and Russia. Does the Minister agree that in the circumstances, it is essential that there should remain an international presence on the ground in Georgia? Will she tell us what representations the Government are making to the Russian authorities to ensure that the OSCE mission to Georgia remains after the end of June?

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the concern about the breakdown of the talks yesterday. We were very disappointed that the Russian and South Ossetian delegates pulled out of the afternoon sessions of the Geneva talks on Monday 18 May, and that Abkhazia did not participate at all. Positively, however, we are encouraged that the co-chairs worked overnight to reconvene the talks, and that all participants have attended this morning's meetings. We will continue to press our Russian colleagues on their involvement in this process, and on the importance of the international missions. The European Union mission has played an important role in this regard. I was also pleased to meet the Prime Minister of Georgia last week. We had discussions on a number of issues, including this one.

Denis MacShane: A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of passing through Gori in the centre of Georgia, where the last great statue of Stalin stands, and of going up to Tskhinvali, where the Russian flag flies and where Russia is creating a new frontier deep in the heart of Georgia.
	Russian policy from Moscow is quite simple: "Russia up; America down; and Europe out"—and I am not sure that that is not also Conservative party policy. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she will seek to speak with her European colleagues with one voice on Russia? Does Russia not need to be told firmly and clearly that it no longer has the right to occupy a UN and Council of Europe member state and that its flag should be flying in the land of Russia, not in the heart of another sovereign country?

Caroline Flint: We shall continue to press our Russian colleagues on meeting the terms of the Medvedev-Sarkozy agreement of last summer. I was very pleased to see a successful launch of the Eastern Partnership, of which Georgia is one of the six participating countries, as this will further add to the EU's ability to strengthen its relationship both with Georgia itself and the other five partnership countries.

David Lidington: I want to press the Minister further on her answer to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). Russia is installing border guards within Abkhazia and South Ossetia—within the internationally recognised borders of a sovereign Georgia. Does she not agree that that action amounts to a clear violation of the ceasefire terms agreed last year? Will she state plainly today that the British Government will assert a policy that there should be no new partnership between the EU and Russia until Russia meets those obligations in full?

Caroline Flint: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in respect of the partnership and co-operation agreement with Russia and talks about the issues around it, the tone and pace of the discussions will be determined, as both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have said before, by Russia's engagement in dealing with its relationship with Georgia. We absolutely share the hon. Gentleman's concern that Russia has not fully complied with the Sarkozy-Medvedev agreement and we are very concerned about Russian plans further to militarise the separatist regions, which contradicts Russia's commitments, so in tandem with our EU partners we will continue to press Russia to comply fully as soon as possible. As I said, the Geneva talks were one way of trying to keep discussions continuing, but there is clearly more to be done. If there are any other levers at our disposal, we will use them.

Tony Lloyd: Following on from that exchange, is it not vital for the EU to begin to show some unity of purpose? If we want effective pressure to be brought to bear on Moscow in respect of Georgia and other aspects of EU-Russia relations, we need to remember that in the past the EU has not spoken with one voice but on the basis of individual self-interest, which has been disastrous. We must have unity of purpose so that we can speak with a single voice.

Caroline Flint: Yes, I agree absolutely. This case provides a good example—an unfortunate one, in the sense that we wish we did not have the problem—of where the EU has come together in a solid way to make its position known. I pay tribute to the rapid deployment of the EU monitoring mission, which shows that the EU is capable of deploying civilians and the military at short notice in order to tackle emerging crises. The monitoring mission is playing a really valuable role in defusing tension. In view of the discussions about the OSCE role, thank goodness that we have the EU monitoring mission.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that there is instability in too many parts of the world, and that we do not want to add to it? Would it not be better to seek to develop and improve our relationship with Russia—historically, over many decades, we have had a good relationship—in order to ensure that we do our best to help the country in its relationship with Georgia? I am worried that we appear to be backing one side rather than seeking to be a genuine peacemaker and to understand both sides of the equation.

Caroline Flint: It is certainly not the case that we are sticking to one side. We can disagree with the Russians on certain issues, but at the same time we can recognise where we have good bilateral links—trade being just one example. Our involvement and that of the EU is not intended to isolate Russia, but to draw attention to the fact when we think it is wrong, as we do in this case. The best thing Russia can do is to come to the table, allow the situation to be resolved and move on. I agree that there are too many conflicts in the world and we cannot always deal with them as individual nation states, which is why we work in partnership with others. I am glad that, on this particular issue, the EU—with us making an important contribution—is playing a constructive role.

David Drew: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but will she give me an assurance that if any company from this country, or indeed from the wider European Union, trades in Georgia and the Russians engage in any retaliatory action, we will take a very dim view of it?

Caroline Flint: Yes.

Carbon Reduction

Jo Swinson: What recent progress has been made on his Department's goal of working with other countries and international institutions to shift rapidly towards a lower carbon world.

David Miliband: All our efforts are dedicated to bilateral and multilateral contributions to a successful Copenhagen summit in December. The G20 commitment to
	"build an inclusive, green, and sustainable recovery"
	was welcome. The European Union's decision to ring-fence €9 billion to build 12 carbon capture and storage plants around Europe was also important. Our work has been much helped by the constructive approach of the new United States Administration, and we continue to work with them and others towards an ambitious deal in December.

Jo Swinson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his reply, and particularly for his words about the vital importance of a good deal at Copenhagen in December. However, given that the March meeting of EU leaders ended in a refusal to commit financial support to the world's poorest countries to help them to adapt to climate change and limit their emissions, and given that that refusal could seriously undermine progress in international negotiations, will he tell us what diplomatic efforts his Department is undertaking to persuade our EU counterparts to change their position at next month's summit?

David Miliband: I think that the hon. Lady is being a little unfair. The March European summit agreed that both the Mexican and the Norwegian proposals for the raising of carbon finance were particularly important and needed to be explored, and the European Union is at the forefront of ideas for the generation of finance for both mitigation and adaptation.
	As it happens, the hon. Lady and I take exactly the same stance on this issue. We agree that the advanced industrialised countries need to show real leadership, that they need to generate funds in innovative ways, and that incentives are needed for the achievement of the kind of low-carbon transition in developing countries that the industrialised world failed to achieve in the 20th century.

Alan Simpson: In pursuing an agenda that will reach out to the developing nations, will the Foreign Secretary pay particular attention to the need to draw in and draw upon current experiences in China? As he will know, China is responsible for 20 per cent. of the world's production of photovoltaic panels, and is currently increasing its production by 50 per cent. a year to deliver full electrification of its rural areas by 2015. Will he return to the House at some stage to explain what the implications would be for jobs and skills in the United Kingdom and Europe were we to commit ourselves to the same sort of transformation to renewable forms of energy?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend, who follows these matters carefully, has made an important point about the technology that is being developed in developing countries. Much of the talk about technology transfer neglects the fact that developing countries have a head start in a number of areas. As for reporting to the House, I must be particularly careful not to trample on the rights of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband). However, I will have a fraternal word with him, and we will divide the labour between us and ensure that proper discussion takes place in the House.

Afghanistan

Simon Burns: What role his Department will have in monitoring the conduct of the forthcoming presidential elections in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

Bill Rammell: The United Kingdom is committed to supporting a credible, Afghan-led electoral process, and that includes supporting international election observation. We are working with EU partners to encourage and support an EU elections observation mission. United Kingdom officials in Afghanistan will be involved in in-country observation efforts undertaken by diplomatic missions and provincial reconstruction teams.

Simon Burns: Given the levels of violence in Afghanistan, does the Minister think there are sufficient troops to perform the difficult task of supporting and monitoring the forthcoming elections?

Bill Rammell: Yes, I do. The key, overriding responsibility rests with the Afghan-led security forces themselves. The whole strategy has been based on capacity building so that they can take on that task. The recent commitment to a significant expansion in those forces is welcome, but of course they will be backed up by the international security assistance force.

Des Browne: I think my hon. Friend will agree that the success of our strategy for Afghanistan is dependent on a credible election—credible to the people of Afghanistan, that is. Does he also agree that one simple thing we can do to ensure that they receive the message that we support credible elections in Afghanistan is repeatedly to say—and encourage the American Administration to say—that our support for democracy constitutes support for the institutions of democracy in Afghanistan and not for any individual candidates?

Bill Rammell: That is emphatically the case. It is important and, with the will of the international community, the Afghan Administration and the independent electoral commission, we need to ensure that, as was the case in 2004-05, these election results represent the will of the Afghan people, regardless of which candidates eventually succeed.

Keith Simpson: Many outside observers—and, indeed, people inside Afghanistan—have been very concerned not only about the level of violence, but about the level of corruption. Has the Foreign Office laid down its own set of criteria by which the election outcome can be judged? This matter is very important, because if there are any questions in people's minds that the new President has been elected, or re-elected, largely on a corrupt agenda, that will undermine all the efforts we and our allies are putting in.

Bill Rammell: It was the case that the 2004-05 election results were credible and that they represented the will of the Afghan people. I think that, with the support of the international community, that can be the case again, but it is clearly incumbent on all the candidates to focus in their election platforms on ensuring governance, security and development; they need to be at the forefront of their efforts as they move towards an election.

Topical Questions

Rob Marris: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

David Miliband: The results of the Indian elections represent a resounding reaffirmation of the health of the world's largest democracy. The Congress party and its allies now have a strong mandate and India has the prospect of another five years of stable, progressive government. This is a particular tribute to the work of Prime Minister Singh, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. We look forward to continuing to work closely with the new Indian Government to address the many urgent global and regional challenges we face.

Rob Marris: Speaking of regional challenges, I recognise the great efforts of the United Kingdom Government in Sri Lanka in past months. It has been very difficult. What prospects are there of a process of reconciliation in Sri Lanka now?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises a particularly important point. Obviously, we are very focused, as is the whole international community, on the humanitarian situation, but equally important now that the fighting and territorial conflict seem to be over is having a genuine political process towards an inclusive political settlement for all the Sri Lankan people. President Rajapaksa's speech today to the Sri Lankan Parliament is very important. It sets out some commitments in respect of the equal rights of all Sri Lankans. It is vital that the international community works with the Sri Lankan Government to ensure that that is finally fulfilled.

John Bercow: Further to the earlier question of the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) about Colombia, will the Foreign Secretary or the Under-Secretary of State say a little more about the particular categories of civilians being singled out for abduction, torture and slaughter? Reference was made by a number of hon. Members to trade unions, but am I not right in thinking that also very prominent on the list, as one would expect from an odious regime, are journalists?

Gillian Merron: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise that issue. This is why one of the projects we are undertaking and funding is to do with establishing a free media. It is also true that it is not only journalists—and trade unionists—who have difficulty in speaking out; so, too, do other members of civil society and, indeed, indigenous people. The truth is that for as long as any one of those groups is unable to speak out without fear, there will always be difficulty, and that is not in the interests of a free and fair Colombia.

Stephen Pound: Further to the Secretary of State's response to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), may I tell the Secretary of State that my constituent Dr. Omar Mangoush and three medical colleagues have been detained since last Friday at the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Palestine? Will he accept a representation from me to see what we can do to persuade the Egyptian Government to release this group of people bent on a humanitarian mission?

David Miliband: Certainly, and I am pleased to report to my hon. Friend that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), will be travelling to Egypt today and will be able to take with him—

Denis MacShane: You ask a question and you get your trip!

David Miliband: No, the trip was organised before the question, but I am pleased that the Minister of State will be able to take the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) directly to the people who matter, and we will certainly get the details from him before the Minister departs.

William Hague: The Foreign Secretary spoke rightly a few moments ago about the importance of reconciliation and reconstruction in Sri Lanka—a process that must be as big a test for its Government as the military conflict that is coming to an end. In that regard, will he consider the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Defence Secretary, when he was in Sri Lanka two months ago, for an internationally managed development fund to channel relief aid to the north of the country? Would that not be a mechanism that the international Tamil diaspora could constructively support and that would be seen as independent and impartial? Will the Government join us in putting forward such a proposal—or will they put forward their own equivalent—as well as saying to the Sri Lankan Government that it is time to engage all ethnic groups in a genuine political process, so that this military victory does not turn into a renewed insurgency?

David Miliband: We have been discussing all options for the delivery of funding to Sri Lanka. It is important to say that until now the focus has been on humanitarian help, for reasons that I imagine the right hon. Gentleman will understand.
	When it comes to reconstruction, a wide range of funds will be delivered to Sri Lanka. The country has a bid in for International Monetary Fund funding and there has been discussion in this House over the past two months about the appropriateness of such funding, but I assure him that nothing has been ruled out. The crucial issues for us will be: first, to ensure that there is genuine international support; secondly, to ensure that the money reaches the right people; and thirdly, and obviously, to ensure that it is properly meshed with the arrangements being made by the Government of Sri Lanka. One particular on which work is under way is demining, because the areas that have been "cleared" and now need to be repopulated include those that had a lot of mines laid by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—the LTTE. That is a particular issue where I know that there is a need for help and we want to ensure that it reaches the right place.

William Hague: I very much accept what the Foreign Secretary says, but will he examine this already worked-up proposal? He has done a lot, although he has often been checked at the United Nations, to focus international attention on the crisis in Sri Lanka, and I hope he will take the message from across this House that we support his calls for unfettered access for international agencies to what have been the conflict zones and to internally displaced persons camps.
	Finally, on the question of support, given widespread reports that the Foreign Secretary is about to be replaced by Lord Mandelson, may I invite him to agree that in the 21st century the appointment by an unelected Prime Minister of an unelected Foreign Secretary in an unelected House would be a very good argument for an immediate general election?

David Miliband: I shall take that as warm good wishes from the right hon. Gentleman. Whether or not they are good for my prospects is an open question, but suffice it to say that I look forward to at least another year of the jousting that we have had across the Dispatch Box.

Siobhain McDonagh: My right hon. Friend will know that more than 250,000 Tamils are in refugee camps in the northern region of Sri Lanka and that no independent monitors or journalists are allowed into that region. Given that situation, the fear of reprisals and the fears about the removal of evidence of atrocities, will he do everything he can to inform the Sri Lankan Government that they will never win the peace unless they allow the United Nations monitors in at the earliest possible opportunity?

David Miliband: It is right to recognise that my hon. Friend has been a doughty, principled and passionate advocate of not only her constituents but all civilians in Sri Lanka. Her call for the maximum transparency and the maximum access is in the interests of not only the people of Sri Lanka who have suffered, but all those committed to Sri Lanka's future, because it is precisely the sort of access and transparency that she advocates that will be essential for any kind of reconciliation or political settlement to take place. I said in this House two weeks ago that a war without witness was being fought in the north of the country and, in many ways, that is the most dangerous kind of war, because it makes winning the peace that much more difficult. I assure her that the commitments to openness and access that were reflected in my written ministerial statement today will be followed up by the Government at all levels.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Following the totally unjustified actions by the Burmese authorities in moving Aung San Suu Kyi and five of her supporters to jail, and as the authorities in Burma spent more than 50 per cent. of their budget on arms and armed forces in order to suppress their own people and prop up their rotten Government, will the Foreign Secretary undertake a new initiative with the United Nations to see what further sanctions can be applied to Burma, including a worldwide arms ban?

Bill Rammell: We have been at the forefront of the case for sanctions against the Burmese regime. We recently saw the rollover of EU sanctions. The recent actions have been reprehensible—the Prime Minister led the way internationally last week in condemning them—and the re-arrest last week suggests that the Burmese regime was intent on finding any pretext, no matter how tenuous, to extend Aung San Suu Kyi's unlawful detention. While thousands of political prisoners are still locked up in jail, including Aung San Suu Kyi, there cannot be credible elections in Burma next year.

Paul Rowen: Is not the lesson from Northern Ireland for the middle east peace process that all parties need to be involved? What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that Hamas is involved in the forthcoming peace talks?

David Miliband: One can debate long and hard the lessons of Northern Ireland, but one lesson is that all sides need to renounce violence. That will be the basis for a political settlement in the middle east.

Colin Burgon: Our foreign policy towards Cuba is that Ministers will not visit Cuba. The Minister will be aware that this month the Canadians sent their Foreign Minister, thus meaning that the Heads of State or Ministers of 16 countries have visited Cuba. Would the Minister be willing to meet a group of us who think that our current policy is wrong for the Cuban people and wrong for Britain, too?

Gillian Merron: I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to discuss our policy on Cuba. Our policy is continually to develop good relations with Cuba, which we have. On the issue of ministerial visits, my hon. Friend knows that I would be delighted to visit Cuba, but the difficulty is that the Cuban authorities indicate that, regrettably, they feel it would not be appropriate for British Ministers to meet the Opposition. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands. Perhaps he could assist me with this, as we need to see some change in that situation to allow me or other British Ministers to visit Cuba, in line with the EU common position.

Edward Davey: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement today on Sri Lanka, for his emphasis on humanitarian aid and for his comments in answer to other hon. Members about the importance of transparency and UN monitors as well as the need for President Rajapaksa to reach out to the wider Tamil community to get a wider political solution. However, is not the key lesson from this horrific suffering that the international community has reduced influence when countries such as China prevent a united international position? May I prevail on the Foreign Secretary, in a week in which he has lauded the emergence of China as a major power, to urge his Chinese counterparts not to shirk their responsibilities as a major power but to deliver the same message to the Government of Sri Lanka as Britain and the EU?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that disunity in the international community terribly undermines any sort of effectiveness in it. He will know that in Beijing in February 2008 I argued for responsibility from all powers, not just to their own citizens but to the international system, too. That obviously applies to China as an important member of the UN Security Council, and I hope that our increased engagement with the Chinese authorities means that we will be able to find more common ground of the sort that he describes. Whether in the case of Sri Lanka, Iran or any of the great major conflicts that we face, disunity breeds impotence and it is vital that that is overcome.

Joan Humble: Many opponents of the European Union are telling people that as much as 75 per cent. of the legislation debated in the House comes from Europe. What assessment has my right hon. Friend's Department made of that assertion and can she give us some more information?

Caroline Flint: It is absolutely rubbish to say that 75 per cent. of legislation comes from Brussels. In fact, the House of Commons Library produced an independent research paper demonstrating that between 1998 and 2005 only 9 per cent. of statutory instruments were actually about implementing European legislation. The other important point to remember is that often when we have domestic laws other European countries are mindful of them, so we do not have to implement anything because we are able to negotiate a position that reflects our current situation. That is about having influence—about having people listen to us—and I am pleased that we have more friends and allies in Europe in 2009 than we inherited in 1997.

Anthony Steen: With regard to point 9 of the 2008 UK action plan, which gives to the countries of origin joint responsibility for preventing the trafficking of human beings, will the Minister meet the Foreign Secretary of China and tell him exactly how human trafficking actually works from China? Young people, mostly children, are trafficked across from China and when they are on the plane they either swallow their passport or put it down the loo. Having come to Gatwick, they claim not as trafficked humans but as asylum seekers. They are brought to a care home just outside Gatwick and within two hours they have disappeared: their trafficker rings them on a mobile and off they go, and are lost for ever. Is the Minister aware of that and will he talk about it to the Foreign Secretary in China?

Bill Rammell: I know the hon. Gentleman has taken a keen interest in these issues and I pay tribute to that. We have an important bilateral relationship with China, and one of the key elements of that relationship is seeing greater co-operation and improvement in both migration and trafficking. We take those issues up on a regular basis, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk to me about them privately, I shall happily take that further.

Ian Cawsey: On a recent visit to Washington, I was very impressed by all that the Obama Administration are doing to try to rebuild trust and faith in the American presidency and Administration across the world, in stark contrast to the President's predecessor. Given how closely our Government were associated with the Bush regime, I wonder what my right hon. Friend is doing to back the Obama Administration so that we too can help to rebuild trust across the world.

David Miliband: We want to build trust across the world on the basis of what we do, and what we do with our allies, and our long-standing relationship with the United States stands us in very good stead. The Obama Administration share not only priorities but values with the UK Government. In respect of the new American President's outreach to the Islamic world and in respect of issues such as climate change, and also in his determination to get to grips with the middle east process, he has made a flying start in the past 120 days. He has made a start that is rebuilding America's reputation around the world.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are over time, and I have tried to take the questions that were on the Order Paper.

Points of Order

John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the debate yesterday, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), told the House that my constituents could complain about the closure of emergency heart facilities in Ipswich through the consultation process and the intervention of the health strategy committee of the county council. He failed to tell the House that the strategic health authority had refused any consultation whatever, that the county council is debarred from intervening by the purdah period under electoral law and that the strategic health authority has chosen this moment to push through a very damaging decision without any kind of disclosure. Would you please ask—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I have made every allowance in the circumstances. I tried to give as good a hearing as I could to the right hon. Member but it was becoming apparent that it was not strictly a point of order. However, I hope he has sufficient on the record for the point to have been made.

John Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no point of order, so I cannot take a further point on it. I have ruled, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that ruling.

John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to raise this, but is there no way in which one can ask a Minister to return to the House to correct the record on a point of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that that was the original non-point of order part 2, and all this arose on a debate on Mid Staffordshire, as I recall. The fact of the matter is that I have no power to call a Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has got that on the record, and it will be noted.

Andrew MacKinlay: I wonder—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Andrew MacKinlay: Yes, absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall countless debates in which other hon. Members and I have protested about the Intelligence and Security Committee trying to pretend that it is a parliamentary committee. We recently debated its rather dotty report. This morning, the Prime Minister published its report on the London underground bombings, but you will notice that there is no statement. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) was in the revolving door of being the Chairman of that so-called Committee, she wrote to the Prime Minister to say that, given the seriousness of public interest, she hoped that debates on the report when it came out
	"will be held in both Houses of Parliament shortly thereafter."
	She has moved back to the Ministry; the report has come out today, without a ministerial statement; and there is no indication whatsoever that a debate is likely. Will you use your good offices, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rap the knuckles of the Government for not making a statement and a response to the report today and to give notice to them that they will not get away with it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I recall listening to the generous contribution—in terms of length—that the hon. Gentleman made to that debate. I am sure that he will pursue this in his customary, dogged fashion, and he knows that there are other ways to do so, through questioning, debate and so on, other than on an attempt at a point of order.

Evan Harris: On a point of order of which I have given notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised last week at business questions, as did other hon. Members, the problem with programme motions being imposed on the House and Opposition parties. I asked the Leader of the House whether she planned to negotiate with Front and Back Benchers about where the knives go. She said in response:
	"We will have as much discussion as we can and will try, if possible, to reach agreement on the allocation of time in the full day's debate on Report."
	She repeated that assertion in her response to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)—a senior Member—saying, "we will have discussions". I raised the issue on a point of order at that time with Mr. Speaker and asked him whether he has a role in ensuring that Back Benchers are protected from imposed programme motions, and he said:
	"He will have heard the remarks made by the Leader of the House a few minutes ago."—[ Official Report, 14 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 1026-32.]
	A programme motion has been announced for the debate that follows. We can debate it, but it was not subject to consultation with Front or Back-Bench colleagues. Indeed, the Government Whip said that it is up to Opposition parties to go to the Government. That is the first that we have ever heard of that. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, advise how we as a House can ensure that negotiations take place on programme motions and on where the knives go before they are imposed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a decision that can be made solely by the occupant of the Chair, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand. I am sure that the Procedure Committee would be happy to examine this. The points that he wishes to make can be made in the debate, when he could seek to challenge the programme motion if he was successful in catching my eye.

Evan Harris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In an attempt to take that advice, my colleagues and I have tabled an amendment to the programme motion. Is it within your gift to select that amendment, so that we can have a debate that is more focused on the problem of the Government imposing their timetable on the House which is unable to scrutinise huge chunks of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that all those points were at the forefront of Mr. Speaker's mind when, unhappily, his ruling was not to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

Commission for the Compact

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Tom Levitt: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place the Commission for the Compact on a statutory basis; to confer powers on the Commission; and for connected purposes.
	Let me first remind the House what the compact is. It is the national agreement between Government and the voluntary and community sector, aimed at improving their relationship for mutual advantage and community gain. It contains undertakings by both the Government and the sector about how they will conduct relations with each other. The agreement is voluntary and freely entered into, so although both sides are committed to the compact, it is not legally binding, and its undertakings cannot be enforced. The Bill does not change that arrangement.
	In 1998, along with the then Home Office Minister, Paul Boateng, and Sir Kenneth Stowe, the compact's author, I had the privilege of formally launching the compact. The compact was a world first, and it has inspired other countries to develop their own. Across Europe, in particular, many have looked to the United Kingdom for guidance, and several countries have established similar agreements. The compact should be hailed as a great achievement. It has clearly set out the Government's commitment to an independent, diverse and thriving voluntary and community sector. It enshrines the sector's right to that independence, including its right, within the law, to campaign, comment on and challenge Government policy. The agreement has also been a driver for change at national and local level, defining what partners can expect from each other, and improving how they work together. That has resulted in better programmes, policies and services for citizens and communities, by setting clear standards for consultation, improving funding processes and providing resources for building the capacity of the third sector.
	A milestone in the 10-year history of the compact was the development of local compacts, through which local authorities have worked alongside the sector to develop a compact way of working, making an invaluable difference to the communities that they serve. Just over the river in Lambeth, for example, a local compact turned the campaign to keep Brockwell lido open into a partnership to manage it jointly, allowing a much-loved landmark to survive, and to continue to be a special place for generations to come.
	At the national level, the picture has been less clear-cut. There is a perception in the sector that commitment to, and compliance with, the compact in some—but by no means all—areas of government is somewhat patchy. A Home Office consultation in 2005 highlighted a lack of awareness of the compact, and identified a number of barriers to its adoption and implementation, so in April 2007 it was decided to establish the Commission for the Compact to act as a champion of the code and drive a change in behaviour. The compact advocacy programme of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and Compact Voice have also played a fundamental role in promoting the compact and its principles, the former by advocating on behalf of individual organisations to ensure that the Government follow the agreed principles, and the latter by raising awareness within the voluntary and community sector, building up a strong network and representing the sector's voice on compact issues to Government.
	In July 2007, the third sector review acknowledged that there was a desire within the sector for better partnership working with all levels of Government. It was concluded that that stronger approach was required to ensure that public bodies consistently adhered to the compact principles. A number of areas have been identified, and are well known, where the 10-year-old compact is being overtaken by developments in policy and practice. Although there has been little or no questioning of the desirability of maintaining a partnership working agreement between Government and the third sector, there is a perception that the compact is out of date, especially in respect of public service delivery.
	Looking at the national level, many in the third sector are frustrated that the undoubted political commitment to the compact may not have been translated consistently into Government practice. As a result of that analysis, Sir Bert Massie, as Commissioner for the Compact, was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), then Minister for the Third Sector, to launch a debate on the future of the compact and the commission. The consultation concluded that the compact agreement should retain its voluntary nature and its values, rather than being replaced with a statutory version, so the Bill does not alter the status or the content of the compact.
	However, a majority also recognised that significantly more needs to be done to ensure proper implementation of the compact. There was strong consensus that the most effective way to do that would be to establish the Commission for the Compact as a permanent, independent statutory body, and to give it a mandate and a limited range of legal powers to secure better implementation. The Commission for the Compact is a non-departmental public body with the object of promoting and strengthening partnership working between public bodies and voluntary and community organisations. Its sole voting member is the Minister for the Cabinet Office. In addition, it has a small board consisting of directors with wide knowledge and experience. The members of the board are not intended specifically to represent central or local government, but they are meant to work independently and impartially in the interests of strengthening partnership working.
	To fulfil the role, the commission needs to act independently and be seen to do so, but the current legal structure does not ensure that. The Minister created the commission, holding 100 per cent. of the membership voting rights himself, as well as full powers over its constitution and existence. In practice, successive Ministers have allowed the commission full operational independence, but there is no guarantee that future Ministers would do the same, in which case both the commission's status and its credibility could be undermined. The commission is not a regulatory body and has no powers beyond those of any private citizen.
	With this Bill I propose to place the Commission for the Compact on a statutory basis and confer a very limited range of legal powers to enable it to promote better implementation of the compact. Having the commission established by Parliament, with a constitution and powers determined by Parliament and a duty to report to Parliament, would make a great difference, lifting the commission out of direct Government control and making it inherently and visibly independent.
	During the discussions held in the other place on the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, Lord Best tabled an amendment with similar intent to my Bill. However, it was ultimately deemed not to be within the scope of that Bill, despite having cross-party support. In particular, the Communities and Local Government Minister, Baroness Andrews, was very sympathetic to its objectives.
	Now is the right moment to introduce the necessary changes. We are at a watershed with the compact. Ten years on, we must ensure that it remains a relevant and helpful tool in improving the relationship between Government and the third sector. The provisions of the Bill propose to convert the commission into a corporation with statutory powers, thus making it accountable to Parliament. The commission would consist of the Commissioner for the Compact and a small number of additional board members appointed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
	The new commission would have a number of functions, mainly to promote and strengthen understanding and use of the compact across all tiers of government and within the voluntary and community sector. Its limited number of new powers and duties will constrain it to act in particular ways. Those would include powers of investigation where there have been inconsistencies with compact principles, access to relevant information, and the ability to impose a duty on others to co-operate with its investigations.
	Both the statutory sector and voluntary and community organisations would be included within the commission's remit. Given that the compact is about better partnerships, it is fair and reasonable for the commission's powers to apply to both sides. There are no sanctions included in the Bill, as I believe that those would be outside the spirit of the compact, other than the power of naming and shaming those who are found not to be acting in that spirit.
	This is a unique opportunity to make the compact more real and more relevant. It comes at a time when the compact is being scrutinised by the public and the third sectors with a view to agreeing changes. By strengthening the commission, we will finally have the mechanism to remove blocks to compact compliance and spread best practice on working together across government and the third sector. The end result would be not only a compact agreement that is more effective at all levels, but refreshed relationships between all the parties involved.
	In practice, the Bill applies only to England. We would be the first country in Europe to take such a landmark step, setting the standard for the way in which relationships between Government and the voluntary and community sector should be conducted. Once again, our Government would be at the forefront in their relations with this ever more important and influential sector. I seek leave to bring in the Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Tom Levitt, Liz Blackman, Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods, Mr. David Blunkett, Mr. Tim Boswell, Richard Burden, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Robert Flello, Fiona Mactaggart, Alun Michael, Dan Rogerson and Andrew Selous present the Bill.
	Tom Levitt accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 99).

Policing and Crime Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Vernon Coaker: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 19 January (Policing and Crime Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	3. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			  TABLE 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses and amendments relating to the retention, use and destruction of samples etc. One and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. 
			 New Clauses and amendments relating to Part 4. Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. 
			 New Clauses and amendments relating to Part 2; new Clauses and amendments relating to Part 1; remaining proceedings on consideration. One hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced. 
		
	
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
	The motion has apportioned time to allow for debate about the main issues that were brought forward by Members and stakeholders both in and outside Parliament. These brief remarks are intended to allow the maximum amount of time for debate.

Christopher Huhne: The programming of the entire Bill has been quite extraordinary. The worst aspect is the allocation of just one day on Report to debate an extremely far-reaching Bill, which includes clauses that cover police reform, prostitution, lap dancing, gang injunctions, alcohol-related disorder, extradition, proceeds of crime, aviation security and the DNA database. I could add more.
	One day is simply not adequate to apply the proper legislative scrutiny that the Bill requires. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and others from all parts of the House have consistently made clear at the last two business questions their dissatisfaction with the decision. Noting those concerns, the Leader of the House made assurances that all concerned parties would be consulted on the programme motion for Report. However, no such consultation took place with us, despite the activity that we exhibited in Committee.

Evan Harris: We seem to be in a strange situation whereby the Leader of the House, none other, makes an assertion—a pledge—from the Dispatch Box at business questions but does not deliver on it. What explanation—perhaps there is one—can possibly be consistent with that assertion and pledge having been given in good faith?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am certainly unable to speculate on what has happened, but it is absolutely clear that we may now have as little as 30 minutes to debate the hugely important issue of the future of the DNA database. That is simply unacceptable, and it comes after the extremely late tabling in Committee of new clauses on DNA and gangs, which effectively precluded much debate and, indeed, the tabling of any Opposition amendments. The DNA amendments were tabled on the Friday of the February recess, allowing very little time to draft amendments before the deadline of Tuesday midday for the final Committee sitting.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) pointed out in Committee, the purposes of such Committees are to scrutinise the Bill, to table probing amendments, to ask questions and to allow the Government time to clarify their positions and aims. Little or no opportunity for any such scrutiny was provided on the DNA and gang amendments. With only one day on Report and wholly inadequate programming, there will again be little or no time for the House, as the elected representatives of the people, properly to debate these crucial issues. It is, frankly, shameful.
	That raises the wider issue, so pertinent in the current climate, of whether the Government should bear sole responsibility for setting the business of the House through such programme motions. The measure was introduced during the first world war—at a time of national emergency—and has long outlived its usefulness. Few other legislatures allow the Executive to decide business in that way. No other western democracy forbids private Members' motions, and when it comes to legislative scrutiny the House's procedures are seriously lacking, as we have seen with the Bill. Scrutiny is easily fashioned to suit the Government's political objectives, and inbuilt majorities for the Executive ensure support for even the most peremptory truncation of debate.
	Public Bill Committees, such as that which considered this Bill, take up an enormous amount of MPs' time yet, without Government support, seldom make any substantial difference to legislation—even when they have heard expert evidence. This Bill is an excellent example of that, as not a single Opposition amendment was agreed in Committee. Over the past 10 years, legislation has increasingly been fast-tracked through the Commons, with timetable motions ensuring that large sections of important Bills are never scrutinised by MPs. This is just another outrageous example. There have been similar problems with the Coroners and Justice Bill; my noble Friend Lord Thomas of Gresford made just that point on Second Reading in another place yesterday.
	The volume of legislation shovelled through in that way has been absolutely immense; we are now looking at 3,600 new criminal offences—and this Bill is the 66th criminal justice Bill since 1997. It is becoming abundantly clear that quantity does not make up for a lack of quality, yet instead of programming adequate time to debate such Bills on Report or allowing enough time for debate of new amendments in Committee, the Government are set on pushing quantity through with no regard whatever for quality. We therefore rely on the unelected House of Lords to do our job for us—for which, frankly, we should be embarrassed and ashamed.
	The Bill that we are so cursorily considering today is one of the worst examples of the bad practices that have grown up in the Chamber. As I said, we may have just 30 minutes to debate the DNA provisions and perhaps less time to debate the gang provisions once votes are taken into account. We will then be left with approximately two hours for the prostitution and lap-dancing provisions, with little, if any, hope of reaching the several other substantive parts of the Bill, such as those on police reform, alcohol, extradition and proceeds of crime—let alone the many excellent and interesting new clauses that have been tabled on issues such as demonstrations around Parliament, anti-terrorism laws and drug paraphernalia.
	For that reason, we will vote against the programme motion, having tabled amendments to it. The amendments would allow for an hour and 30 minutes on DNA, the absolute minimum required; an hour and half on gangs; and an additional hour at the end of the debate to fit in as much of the remainder of the Bill as possible. We would scrap the hour set aside for Third Reading, as such a debate is not of any practical use for a Bill that has received such shockingly inadequate scrutiny and debate. We will vote against the motion, and strongly urge the Government to think more carefully about the purpose of the House when programming in future.

David Ruffley: This is an important Bill, and it is worth putting on the record the fact that in Committee my hon. Friends and I had a fruitful set of debates with Ministers. There was important agreement on the means of increasing and improving police efficiency through, among other things, collaboration, and important agreement on significant reforms to the law relating to sexual offences, alcohol abuse, extradition and so on. However, since Second Reading a large number of Government amendments have been tabled relatively late, so in Committee there was not sufficient time to get into the meat of some of them. We Conservatives have also tabled amendments for debate on Report. As I look at the number of amendments in front of us, I wonder whether one day will necessarily be enough.

Keith Vaz: Bearing in mind that this debate is about the programme motion, we would all like to be as brief as possible, while not prejudging the outcome of the vote, so that we do not have even less time to discuss these important issues.
	I share the concerns of the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) about the programme motion. There should be no party issue about a debate such as this on a Bill of this kind; it should be about making sure that the legislation works and that there is proper scrutiny. We are dealing with very important issues as far as policing and crime are concerned.
	I was not surprised when the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that the Committee stage had been fruitful, because whenever I have had discussions with the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing on Home Office issues, I have always been pleased with how he has taken on board the concerns of parliamentarians and the wish to reach a consensus. However, my concern is that we are dealing with more than 100 new clauses and amendments on some very important issues.
	If the Home Secretary had come to the House and made a statement about her policy on databases— [ Interruption. ] I am happy to be corrected by the Minister, but I do not think that she did; she went on Radio 4, on the "Today" programme, to do it.  [ Interruption. ] The Minister says that it was him; perhaps it just sounded like the Home Secretary. I think that she did the same in dealing with gang-related violence—the media came first and Parliament second. We have had no notice of the changes that have been proposed on sex-related offences and establishments, or on police reform and accountability, which are all crucial areas.
	I would have thought that the Government would want Parliament to help them to secure a robust piece of legislation that will last in time and make an important impression on the level of crime in this country. Even at this late stage—I know that the Minister will respond in the consensual way in which he always deals with these issues—I urge the Government to provide more time. If we do not finish the business today, I am sure that it will be possible to find additional time. The views expressed by the hon. Members for Eastleigh and for Bury St. Edmunds are shared by Members in all parts of the House. Let us make sure that we have a Bill that will last; let us scrutinise it properly.

Evan Harris: The programme motion that we are faced with is outrageous—there is no other word to describe it. It is not as though it is the first time that such a motion has been tabled and it is a one-off—it happens time and again. I put it to the Government that they do not understand how important Report stage is for the scrutiny of legislation. It is the only opportunity for Back Benchers who did not serve on the Public Bill Committee to debate with Ministers about the provisions in the Bill. What is the point of their speaking on Second Reading—particularly Government Members who do not agree with the Government and therefore talk themselves off the Committee—if they do not then have the chance to express their concerns on Report? It is the only real chance for Back Benchers' amendments to be promoted, but the opportunity to debate several cross-party Back-Bench new clauses and amendments will be stifled by today's motion. It is the only opportunity for Select Committee members—particularly their Chairmen, who are generally not on Public Bill Committees—to participate in detailed debate. We want to hear the views of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who has so much experience to offer this debate, and those of the Home Affairs Committee, which he chairs.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights looks at every Bill with human rights implications and issues a report, and it is its job to ensure that that report is made available on Report in the first House. What is the point of its doing that when huge numbers of its recommendations—this is a cross-party, cross-House Bill—can never be debated on the Floor of this House because the Government's programme motion precludes the opportunity for even those groups of amendments to be reached?

Paul Holmes: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case about the lost opportunity for Back Benchers, members of Select Committees and so forth to contribute. However, that even applies to those of us who served on the Public Bill Committee and had fruitful discussions with the Minister. During the last week of Committee, two major amendments were tabled on gangs and on DNA, but we had totally inadequate time to discuss them. We will have a similarly ludicrous amount of time for discussion in the next hour or two. That represents a failure for everybody—those who were on the Committee and the vast majority who did not have the chance to take part in its deliberations.

Evan Harris: I entirely agree.
	It is not in the Government's interests to present a Bill to the House of Lords—where, thank goodness, they do not have a majority—that has had inadequate scrutiny here because their lordships then recognise that we have failed and give the Government a harder time. We then end up with delayed legislation, whereas if we had done the job properly here, the Government could rightly say, "This is the will of the elected House", and urge their lordships to consider that opinion more appropriately.
	I agree with the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East about the Minister; we had very productive debates in Committee. However, part of the nature of Committee is that one wants to save the key Divisions for Report so that one is not unnecessarily divisive in Committee. That approach allows all Members, perhaps including Government Members with sincere objections who wish to raise them, and even vote on them, to have their say on Report. The Government's curtailing of debate, as in this programme motion, denies the House the chance to debate such important issues and encourages more Divisions in Public Bill Committees, which is not in the interests of democracy or scrutiny.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the provision of more time for consideration would also be better for the Government? Why do they not understand that it would produce a better Bill, and they would have less egg on their face much less often, if we were able to debate these matters? They would not subsequently find out about problems out in the world, where they look very bad indeed.

Evan Harris: Absolutely, and the corollary to that is that if legislation were passed that turned out not to be great, the Government could share the blame with the House as a whole. I would certainly be willing to take my share of the blame if we had debated a matter and failed to convince the House that the legislation was bad.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) recognised, the timetable in Committee sometimes means that even when Government new clauses are tabled at that stage, there is simply not enough to time to debate them because of the end point in the programme motion. The Committee on this Bill was productive and did not drag on, and there was little excess verbiage on all sides, yet, as my hon. Friend said, still the Government brought in at the last minute two chunks of legislation in new clauses, too late for amendments to them to be tabled. This is the only chance that we have to debate those clauses, and it will be curtailed.
	It is treating the House with contempt—there is no other word for it—for us not to have the opportunity to debate huge chunks of the Bill. That is a particular problem with regard to the DNA proposals, which state that the House will not have the chance to debate primary legislation when the Government sort out what they want to do. We have a Government proposal that would curtail Parliament's ability to amend legislation, and it is going to be rushed through in whatever time we have at the end of this programme motion debate.
	The points that I have made are not just my opinion. They have been debated among a group of MPs, of which I am one of the more junior members, called Parliament First. That is an organisation that comes together to ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) did, "Is it not time for Parliament to reassert itself and have control of the timetable?"
	What else are we to debate in this Session? Is it crammed full of Bills that we need to scrutinise and have Second Reading debates on? The record will show that there are fewer Bills this Session than in practically any other. There are vanishingly few Second Readings still required, and we have had more days of general debates and Adjournment debates than ever before. I am not against those, but they do not trump scrutiny of legislation, which is our primary duty. More of those days have fizzled out, with unused time, than in any other Session that I can remember.
	This is not the first time that such timetabling has happened in this Session. The Coroners and Justice Bill was given two days, but the first day had so much crammed into it that the House did not get the chance to debate murder. I understand that we are debating the present programme motion, but this is not the first time that we have been presented with a programme motion that packs so much into one day that we cannot reach important debates. There have been other examples of that, which I shall not go into now.
	It cannot be said that the House did not urge the Government to reconsider a programme motion such as this. Going backwards in time, I raised the general problem at business questions on 26 March, in another Bill debate on 23 March, in business questions on 19 March and 5 March, in a written question to the Leader of the House on 5 March, in questions to the Leader of the House on 22 January, in business questions on 30 October, on 22 October and in business questions on 16 October. I am getting sick of me, so I am sure the Leader of the House is getting sick of me. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I asked for that. But it is an important point—what more can we do than raise the matter at business questions and in points of order time and time again?
	In business questions two weeks ago, at least six Members mentioned the programming of this Bill. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the Leader of the House said that she would undertake to
	"look at how much time is needed for the Bill"
	In response to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher), she said, "Don't worry, there is plenty of scrutiny of these Bills." I am paraphrasing there, but that response is obviously not going to apply to this Report stage.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, East made the powerful point that an extra day was needed. It would not add greatly to the Government's burden, but it would provide the House with an opportunity to explain why the Government's position on DNA, to which he referred, is wrong. I raised the same point again, asking how the Government intended to deliver the pledge that the Prime Minister gave when he was selected as Prime Minister: that Parliament would have greater scrutiny of the Executive. That pledge has not been delivered, and we are considering another example of that failure.
	In response to me and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the Leader of the House said that
	"there are discussions between the parties about the time allocated to Bills."—[ Official Report, 7 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 351, 357.]
	Last week, she said:
	"We will have as much discussion as we can and will try, if possible, to reach agreement on the allocation of time in the full day's debate on Report."
	That was after we had to accept that we would be given only one day. Again, in response to the hon. Member for Macclesfield, the Leader of the House said:
	"I have said that we will have discussions to make sure that we can try to reach agreement on programming so that hon. Members are able to debate all the important parts of the Bill."—[ Official Report, 14 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 1026 and 1029.]
	What discussions and negotiations took place? I have investigated and, despite the Leader of the House's undertaking, to which the Speaker referred when I made a point of order last week, Government Whips held no discussions with Liberal Democrat Members. Usual channels are usual channels only if they exist. As I understand it, no discussions took place with any Back Benchers who have tabled new clauses. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has tabled several new clauses, yet there were no discussions.
	I ask the Government, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what is to stop the Government Whip on the Bill asking Liberal Democrat Members and Back Benchers generally through the usual channels where the knives should go in such a motion, thereby delivering the Leader of the House's commitment? Has the Government Whip been struck mute or is there another reason for his or the Government's decision not to implement the Leader of House's words, thus rendering them meaningless?

Keith Vaz: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. Is he telling the House that no discussions whatsoever have taken place about the matter, despite the fact that he and I and other hon. Members have raised it continually at business questions? Has not a single discussion about the time available for this important Bill taken place?

Evan Harris: I understand that the only discussion took place between the Government Whip and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman. The Government Whip—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe)—confirmed that. I alerted him to the fact that I would raise the matter and he admitted that he had not approached the Liberal Democrat party or any Back Bencher. I ask the Government whether the Leader of the House's commitment was made in good faith. If so, who is responsible for its not being delivered? Can the Government answer that question or will they undertake to come back and let us know the reason? What is the point of debating such matters at business questions, and of the Leader of the House making a commitment, if her side cannot deliver it? We are currently holding debates about whether the Executive are treating the House fairly; I believe that they are not.
	Let us consider what will not be covered because of the insertion of knives: six Government amendments on police reform and accountability; eight Government amendments on extradition; 51 Government amendments on the proceeds of crime, and seven Government amendments in the last group.  [Interruption.] It is not acceptable for hon. Members to say that if I speak on the important matter of the Government's failure to allow adequate time for debate, I am taking time from the deliberations. Whether we have 45 or 35 minutes on DNA, it is not enough.
	When will the Government give the House the time it needs to debate even the Government amendments—introduced at the last minute—let alone the rest of the Bill? When will the House assert itself and vote against such programme motions? I invite the Conservative party and Government Back Benchers to assert the House's supremacy. Until that happens, we will have poor scrutiny.
	A provision on extradition goes to the heart of human rights issues, but we will clearly not reach it, regardless of how long we spend debating the programme motion. That provision is relegated to a debate of about two and a half hours at the most and is down for consideration after prostitution, lap dancing and police reform. It simply will not be reached.
	There are 51 Government amendments on the proceeds of crime. Why do the Government bring Bills to the House, just one part of which requires 51 Government amendments, and then deny the House the time to scrutinise those amendments? That is not acceptable either.
	The Prime Minister's record on delivering his pledge to provide for proper parliamentary scrutiny of Government business will be shown to be hollow every time the Government table a programme motion such as this one, with knives in place to deliver, on just one day and after the required votes, half an hour or 45 minutes of debate on DNA and half an hour of debate or less on gang-related violence.
	That is not good enough and Parliament should not stand for it. That is why I urge all hon. Members, including the official Opposition, if they are indeed doing their job of scrutiny, to vote against Government programme motions such as this one. I appeal to the House, when it is in a reforming mode, to find ways of ensuring that it is the House that determines its own business, not the Government. The Government are given their allocation of time, but they are not allowed to force through legislation without scrutiny in the disgraceful way that they are today.

John McDonnell: I simply want to place on record my extreme concern that, yet again, our debate on a piece of criminal justice legislation is being curtailed and guillotined in the way that it is today. I appreciate the need for the efficient management of the business of the House and for programming and guillotining at certain stages, but the Bill is a piece of legislation that, if enacted, will deprive a number of our citizens of their liberty. On that basis, debate should not be curtailed in this way.
	May I suggest a way forward? We have a convention in the House that although Finance Bills are programmed to a certain extent, when issues are identified for debate, they are not subject to a guillotine. Indeed, we have gone late into the night on particularly important subjects. Debate on criminal justice Bills that, when enacted, will in effect deprive a number of our citizens of their liberty should be protected in that way. That would protect the rights of Back Benchers such as me, who, for some strange reason, do not serve on Public Bill Committees, and would give us the opportunity to engage in the debate and involve ourselves fully in the legislative process.
	In the current discussions on somehow rehabilitating the name of this House in the eyes of the general public, we need to demonstrate that we are doing our proper job, which is scrutinising legislation, and particularly significant legislation that could result in a number of people losing their liberty. On that basis, the House needs to consider whether criminal justice legislation should be at least partially exempted from the kind of severe guillotining that is taking place today.

Lynne Jones: If there is something rotten with the body politic in this country as far as expenses are concerned—and there is, and I do not exclude myself from that—it is right that there should be media and public attention on the work that we do. Equally, attention should be paid to the rotten way in which we conduct our business. Today is a supreme example of that.
	I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said. It is not as though there is pressure on Government time. For weeks now, we have had days of general debates, and when we get back after the Whitsun break, there will be at least two days of general debates. There is time. The Government could, if they so chose, give time to important legislation such as the Bill that we are considering today. For those reasons, I urge the Government to reconsider and will be voting against the programme motion, as I have on several occasions in the past.

Vernon Coaker: I have heard what hon. Members have said, and all that I would say is that this is a matter for the usual channels. No doubt there will be discussions on the points that have been made. I am grateful for the comments about the constructive way in which the debate in Committee was conducted. Indeed, we had an additional sitting of the Bill Committee. From memory, I think that we had 16 sittings, including four public sittings, in which many of the issues were debated. We have tabled a number of amendments as a direct result of what was said in Committee, and we have tried to address some of the concerns that were raised. We have also tried to allocate time today in a way that will allow debate on some of the main topics, including DNA, gangs and sex-related offences.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 212.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Policing and Crime Bill

[Relevant Documents: The Tenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Policing and Crime Bill, HC 395, and the Fifteenth Report from the Committee, Legislative Scrutiny: Policing and Crime Bill (gangs injunctions), HC  441, and the Government's reply.]
	 Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Destruction of samples etc: England and Wales

'(1) Section 82 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 is repealed.
	(2) Sections 9 and 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are repealed.
	(3) After Section 64A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) insert—
	"64B Destruction of fingerprints and samples etc
	(1) After a person is released without charge or acquitted of the offence for which a sample has been taken that sample shall be destroyed within one month of the fingerprints or samples being taken or the person being acquitted, unless the offence was of a violent or sexual nature.
	(2) If the offence was of a violent or sexual nature that sample must be held for a period of three years, after which it must be destroyed.
	(3) This section applies to the following material—
	(a) photographs falling within a description specified in the regulations,
	(b) fingerprints taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence,
	(c) impressions of footwear so taken from a person,
	(d) DNA and other samples so taken from a person,
	(e) information derived from DNA samples so taken from a person.
	(4) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) "photograph" includes a moving image, and
	(b) the reference to a DNA sample is a reference to any material that has come from a human body and consists of or includes human cells."'.— (Chris Huhne.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Huhne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2— Destruction of samples etc: service offences—
	'(1) Section 113 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (application to armed forces) is amended as follows—
	(2) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) After a person is released without charge or acquitted of the offence for which a sample has been taken that sample shall be destroyed within one month of the fingerprints or sample being taken or the person being acquitted, unless the offence was of a violent or sexual nature.
	(2) If the offence was of a violent or sexual nature that sample must be held for a period of three years, after which it must be destroyed."'.
	New clause 3— Destruction of samples etc (Northern Ireland)—
	'(1) That Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/3141 (N.I 12)) is amended as follows—
	(2) After Article 64A insert—
	"Destruction of samples etc
	"(1) After a person is not charged or acquitted of the offence for which a sample has been taken that sample shall be destroyed within one month of the fingerprints or samples being taken or the person being acquitted, unless the offence was of a violent or sexual nature.
	(2) If the offence was of a violent or sexual nature that sample should be held for a period of three years, and then be destroyed.
	(3) This section applies to the following material—
	(a) photographs falling within a description specified in the regulations,
	(b) fingerprints taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence,
	(c) impressions of footwear so taken from a person,
	(d) DNA and other samples so taken from a person,
	(e) information derived from DNA samples so taken from a person.
	(4) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) "photograph" includes a moving image, and
	(b) the reference to a DNA sample is a reference to any material that has come from a human body and consists of or includes human cells."'.
	New clause 31— Retention of voluntary samples etc.—
	'(1) That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 64(1A)(b) insert—
	"(c) any other provision in this Part does not prohibit or restrict their retention or require their destruction.".
	(3) For section 64(3AC) substitute—
	"3AC Retention of voluntary samples etc.
	Where a person from whom a fingerprint, impression of footwear or sample has been taken consents in writing to its retention—
	(a) that sample need not be destroyed under subsection (3) above;
	(b) subsection (3AB) above shall not restrict the use that may be made of the sample or of any information derived from it; and
	(c) that consent shall be treated as comprising a consent for the purposes of section 63A(1C) above;
	provided that—
	(1) No sample or information derived from any sample may be retained on any child under the age of 10 years; and
	(2) Consent given for the purposes of this subsection shall be capable of being withdrawn by such person upon making written application to the responsible chief officer of police or person authorised by the Secretary of State for such purpose whereupon such sample and any information derived therefrom shall be destroyed as soon as possible following receipt of such written application."'.
	New clause 32— Retention of samples following arrest—
	'(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 64A insert—
	"64B Retention of samples
	(1) Subject to subsection (2), where a sample has been taken from a person under this Part, unless such a person has been given consent in accordance with section 64(3AC), all such samples and all information derived from such samples shall be destroyed as soon as possible following a decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the person or on the conclusion of such proceedings otherwise than with a conviction.
	(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply—
	(a) where the record, sample or information in question is of the same kind as a record, a sample or, as the case may be, information lawfully held in relation to the person; or
	(b) where the person is cautioned for a recordable offence or given a warning or reprimand in accordance with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for a recordable offence in connection with the decision not to institute criminal proceedings or following the withdrawal or cessation of criminal proceedings; or
	(c) where sections 64C or 64D apply.
	(3) For the purposes of this section, criminal proceedings shall not be deemed to have concluded until the earlier of the (1) the lapse of any applicable appeal period and (2) a decision is made not to appeal such proceedings.
	64C Retention of samples etc (violent and sexual offences)
	(1) This section applies where any sample has been taken from a person under this Part where criminal proceedings were instituted against such person in respect of a sexual offence or violent offence and such proceedings concluded otherwise than with a conviction or with the person being cautioned for a recordable offence or given a warning or reprimand in accordance with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for a recordable offence.
	(2) Subject to subsections (6) and (7) below, the sample and any information derived therefrom shall be destroyed no later than:
	(a) 3 years following the conclusion of the proceedings ("the initial retention date"); or
	(b) such later date as may be ordered under subsection (3).
	(3) On application made by a chief officer of police within the period of 3 months before the initial retention date, the Crown Court, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, may make an order amending, or further amending, the date of destruction of the relevant sample and any information derived therefrom.
	(4) An order under subsection (3) shall not specify a date more than 2 years later than the initial retention date.
	(5) Any decisions of the Crown Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal within 21 days of such decision.
	(6) Subsection (2) does not apply where—
	(a) an application under subsection (3) above has been made but has not been determined.
	(b) the period within which an appeal may be brought under subsection (5) above against a decision to refuse an application has not elapsed; or
	(c) such an appeal has been brought but has not been withdrawn or finally determined.
	(7) Where—
	(a) the period within which an appeal referred to in subsection (5) has elapsed without such an appeal being brought; or
	(b) such an appeal is brought and is withdrawn or finally determined without any extension of the time period referred to in subsection (2),
	the sample and any information derived therefrom shall be destroyed as soon as possible thereafter.
	(8) For the purposes of this Part a "sexual offence" or "violent offence" shall mean such offences of a violent or sexual nature as shall be set out in any order made by the Secretary of State with reference to this section.
	64D Retention of Samples - Residual Power
	(1) On application by a chief officer of police, the Crown Court may make an order requiring the retention of a sample taken from a person and any information derived therefrom in circumstances where such a sample and any information derived therefrom would otherwise be required to be destroyed if it has reasonable grounds to believe that:
	(a) there is a serious risk of harm to the public or a section of the public; and
	(b) such retention would prevent, inhibit, restrict or disrupt involvement by the person in the commission of a sexual offence or violent offence.
	(2) An order under this section is not to be in force for more than 5 years beginning with the date of the commencement of the order.
	(3) Any decision of the Crown Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal within 21 days of such decision.
	(4) Where an application has been made for an order under this section, the relevant sample and any information derived therefrom shall not be destroyed until such application and any appeal thereof has been determined.
	(3) At end of section 113(1) insert—
	"provided always that the protections in Part 5 relating to the retention of samples and any information derived therefrom shall also be applied to persons investigated or under arrest under such Acts.".'.
	Amendment 28, page 116, line 16, leave out Clause 95.
	Government amendment 112.
	Amendment 29, page 117, line 32, leave out Clause 96.
	Amendment 30, page 118, line 3, leave out Clause 97.
	Government amendment 113.

Christopher Huhne: These new clauses and amendments address the issue of the retention of fingerprints and other DNA samples stored on the police national database, and seek to fulfil two purposes. Amendments 28 to 30 would seek to remove clauses 95 to 97. New clauses 1 to 3 then replace the current rules on the retention of DNA samples with our preferred alternative. We believe that this is both legal in the eyes of the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, and puts liberty, respect for a private life, and the presumption of innocence at the heart of the rules.
	The UK has the largest DNA database in the world; it is far larger than its American equivalent. It contains records from more than 4 million British citizens; 1 million of those people have no record on the police national computer, and 1 million were added as children. Almost one in two of all black men are on the database. This has been not so much a policy—that would have entailed some systematic attempt to collect DNA—but a random accretion of profiles from anybody who happens to run into the police.
	On 4 December last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the retention of the DNA samples of two men—S and Marper—was illegal, and that it violated their right to a private life. The ruling stated that the judges were
	"struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales".
	They ruled that
	"the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".
	That is a damning indictment of the Government's policy on DNA retention, and serves to highlight the Government's dangerous and illegal obsession with massive, Big Brother-style databases, whether for DNA, e-mails and phone calls, or biometric data collected for ID cards. A report by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust concluded that out of 46 databases examined, one quarter were almost certainly illegal, as the existing DNA database has been found to be, and fewer than 15 per cent. of those assessed were effective, proportionate or necessary.
	The effectiveness of this random accretion in the DNA database is itself highly questionable. Figures have shown that despite the huge increase in the number of profiles on the database—from 2.1 million in 2002 to 5.6 million at the last count—the number of detected crimes in which a DNA match was available has fallen from 21,098 to 17,614 last year. Ministers have failed to produce any respectable peer-reviewed research that supports their case for this random increase in the collection of DNA samples and profiles—indeed, size is, in itself, problematic, as it makes the data more unwieldy in finding matches. Ministers like to say that DNA is essential in detecting crime, and of course it is, but the most significant application of DNA testing is when DNA is found at the scene of a crime and can then be matched with a suspect. That process will continue, and it should do, but what should not continue is the topsy growth for no reason in the number of samples and profiles added to the database.
	Given the weight of evidence in favour of reform of the DNA database, the Government have signally failed to justify their current proposals. I am forced to conclude that Ministers are putting forward what they believe to be the absolute minimum that they can get away with before the European Court, while hoping that campaigners will not mount any further legal challenges. I think that Ministers will be proved wrong; to hold records for six years on people charged with or convicted of no crime, and to hold them for 12 years on those arrested for serious offences, makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence that has been fundamental to our law for centuries. There is no evidence that such a lengthy retention period is proportionate, necessary or effective.
	Despite the extremely sensitive nature of these issues, the Government are essentially asking us to defer all serious decisions to statutory instruments that will be introduced at a later stage—there would then be no requirement even for a debate on the Floor of the House. The House backs far too many, "I'm a Minister, trust me" clauses in any case, but it should certainly not accept their use in this important matter—to do so would frankly be an outrage. This is an issue of national significance and national debate that potentially affects the human rights of millions of people, and it should be addressed only through primary legislation. Ministers will say that time was pressing, consultation periods are long and that what they propose is the only practical way of dealing with the issue, but that is nonsense. We have a precedent for a tailor-made, one-purpose Bill in respect of the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008, which was also drafted in response to a court judgment and commanded support from all parts of the House.
	The Government should not be allowed to get away with passing legislation that has not been subject to proper scrutiny in this House—we heard in the programme motion debate how little scrutiny the Bill received in Committee. Their manoeuvring with consultations and the use of secondary legislation is simply unacceptable, given the seriousness of the issue. We, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, along with Members from all parts of the House, have signed amendments to remove the DNA provisions from the Bill and we will certainly push them to a vote.
	Let me turn to our proposed alternative. We propose a similar system to that which has worked so well in Scotland. When we were in coalition in the Executive in Scotland, my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Scottish Parliament led the charge to introduce less Orwellian rules for Scotland than those currently in place in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish provision allows that any samples and profiles taken, voluntarily or otherwise, from somebody who is subsequently released without charge or acquitted of an offence should be destroyed within one month. However, if an offence was of a violent or sexual nature, a sample can be held for up to three years—we propose that the same period apply.
	There is a legitimate debate to be had over the length of time that retention is acceptable in the cases of those arrested for serious violent or sexual offences. The Government propose to set this limit at 12 years, whereas the Scottish system sets it at three years, as in our new clauses, but allows for a possible two-year extension. The Conservatives' proposals are similar, but we part company with the official Opposition where they allow for a blanket application to retain samples and profiles for up to five years after an arrest for any offence because we believe that to be disproportionate and to depart from the spirit of the Scottish legislation.
	To my mind, the Government's proposals—and, I am afraid to say, those of the Conservatives—do not get the balance right between liberty and the prevention and detection of crime. If there was evidence that the retention of samples for five years or 12 years was significantly more effective in preventing or detecting future crimes, there would be a case to be weighed in the balance, but we have not heard that case from the Government. It is my belief that we should err on the side of the tried and tested principles of British justice, respected as they are and will continue to be north of the border. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our judicial system and must be protected. Our provisions would adequately roll back these intrusive and illiberal powers, while recognising that DNA is an important crime fighting tool and that the taking of samples during investigations must continue. Our proposals get the balance right, and I commend them to the House.

Keith Vaz: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), who based his arguments on the system in Scotland, which offers us an example of what can be done. I feel—this prompted my intervention during the discussion on the programme motion—that this serious and important area of policy deserves a proper debate in the House, rather than the time that we have allocated for this debate.
	The Government are reacting to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. When the judgment was made, the Home Secretary made a statement to the House at the end of last year. Several months passed before the Government decided what their new policy would be. The Government have not met the fundamental objection to holding the DNA of innocent people on the DNA database. Either someone has committed an offence, or they have not. If they have not committed an offence, it is fundamentally wrong that their DNA should be retained on the database. If it is retained, as the Government hope, and an arbitrary figure, such as six years or 12 years, is chosen—I am not sure why those periods were chosen—the worry is that if that arbitrary figure cannot really be justified, it goes against the whole argument in changing the principle.
	When this matter has been raised in the House on numerous occasions, Ministers have said that we need to retain the DNA of individuals in case they commit criminal offences in the future. Ministers have given many examples of the retention of DNA over one issue resulting in people being arrested or imprisoned for another issue several years afterwards. They come to the House with legitimate arguments and evidence to support their view, but I think that that is evidence in support of an even bigger database—the mother of all databases—on which would be retained the DNA of every individual in this country. Either we should have it for everybody, or we should retain only the DNA of those who have been convicted of an offence. The retention of DNA on the presumption that people who are in trouble over one issue will get into trouble over another because they have some kind of criminal tendency is, I think, wrong. That is the problem with the Government's argument—it is the fundamental flaw that they have in trying to address the proper ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. The suggestions made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh deal with that point.
	I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will be able to tell us that the DNA samples of children—of all children—have now been removed from the database. The Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing is nodding, but I give the Under-Secretary the opportunity to put that on the record from the Dispatch Box. I do not think that we have heard that from the Dispatch Box since this matter first came into the public domain.
	Let me give an example of an innocent person who suddenly has his DNA retained. A hooray Henry—a helpful guy—goes into a pub to enjoy himself. He intervenes to prevent a fight. The police are called to stop everyone in the pub, or outside it, causing a disorder. The police take everyone in and the DNA of the person who intervened to stop the fight is retained.
	One of my constituents did exactly that. He intervened to prevent a fight, was arrested, detained overnight in a police station and had his DNA taken. He had no criminal record whatever, yet his DNA was retained. Why retain his DNA? Why presume that he might commit another offence when he has an absolutely clean record and intervened only because he was trying to prevent two people from fighting? He went out to enjoy himself with his friends. He was not involved in the disorder—he tried to stop it.
	A Member of the House has raised the following matter on a number of occasions. When an elderly member of his family died in suspicious circumstances, the police took the DNA of all members of the family. The hon. Gentleman tried for months—it may be years now—to get an answer from the relevant chief constable and to have his DNA removed. He came to me, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and the Committee wrote to the Home Secretary to ask what was happening about the hon. Gentleman's DNA. I am not talking about the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), although he too has a legitimate case for asking for his DNA back.
	Why should the DNA of a Member who was not involved in any criminal activity be retained? He was not even at the scene of a crime, but happened to be related to a person who died in suspicious circumstances—although I understand that they are no longer suspicious.

Paul Holmes: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern about the example I gave in Committee? Two boys had their DNA taken because they built a tree house in a cherry tree—many people probably built tree houses when they were young. Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether children's DNA would be removed. If those boys were 15 or 16 when their DNA was taken, would their DNA be removed when they were over 18 and adults?

Keith Vaz: I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman's concern. A particular incident could lead to DNA being retained. The House knows very well the circumstances relating to the hon. Member for Ashford, and the Select Committee recently published a report about them, although it did not mention the hon. Gentleman's DNA. However, the fact is that his DNA was taken and there would be no prospect of its being removed for six years under the Government's proposals, unless we were to make an exception for Members of the House, and in the current climate we should never be in a position to make exceptions for hon. Members. But why retain that DNA?
	We know that the DNA of a disproportionate number of black and Asian people is held on the database, because if a disproportionate number of black and Asian people are stopped and searched under stop-and-search legislation there will be more DNA from people from the black and Asian community. Their DNA, too, is retained on the database. Why do the Government say that their DNA should be retained for six years or even longer because they were stopped under stop-and-search powers? There is a fundamental flaw in the Government's argument: either it is okay for everybody or it is okay only for people who have committed criminal offences.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh did not deal with the possibility of loss of data, although I am sure he would have done so if he had had the time he sought under the programme motion. Although the situation is better, unfortunately the Government were afflicted by loss of data for a period last year. I do not just blame the present Government—any Government who sought to retain so much data would be affected. The more data the Government possess, the greater the likelihood that the data will be lost, so why hold information if nothing is being done with it?
	Ministers must address those issues if we are being serious about the subject. It is not that those who say that a limit is needed are against catching criminals. Of course we want to catch criminals, and we want to use everything in our power—every piece of new technology—to achieve that.
	The professor of genetics who invented the way in which DNA is extracted and retained is Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester—one of our most eminent citizens, recently given the freedom of the city of Leicester—and he is on record as saying that he does not understand why the Government have made these proposals. He has talked about other ways in which such things can be used to aid the police and other authorities, without the retention. If our arguments are dismissed because we are not experts, I hope that the Government will listen to the expertise of none other than Sir Alec Jeffreys, who says that the Government are wrong on the issue. I know how fond Governments are of relying on experts, so the Government should take it from Alec Jeffreys, if not from us, that they need to think again.
	As the Bill is going through Parliament, the view is, "Let's just stick it in the Bill, because we don't know when the next one is coming out." We have had 66 such Bills, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said—quite a lot of Bills—and we have had almost as many immigration Bills. We need to think carefully before we adopt something that is a knee-jerk reaction, and we should not have a knee-jerk reaction, because we have known about this for seven months, so there is every reason for people to have thought about it very carefully. I hope that Ministers will reflect on the proposal before they push it through the House. I have every sympathy for the Liberal Democrat suggestion, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that sufficient safeguards are in place.
	One of the best safeguards is that, when people write in, they receive replies. In the case of the hon. Gentleman whom I mentioned, he has not had the decency of a reply from the chief constable. At the very least, there should be a robust process of challenging. It should not be exceptional; there should be a reasonable way in which people can challenge the retention. I wrote about my constituent, and I received a very flimsy reply from the custody sergeant. I expect more and better from a Government who are keen to ensure that our liberties are protected.

James Brokenshire: In Committee, I said that the Government's proposal to deal with the retention of DNA data under an order-making power was utterly unacceptable and that we would oppose it vigorously. The Government have not changed their standpoint, and neither have we. The irony was that the Committee debate was held in a vacuum: we had absolutely no idea what the Government would propose. We were simply asked to provide a blank cheque. Now that we have some more details, we do not have the time to debate them sufficiently. Therefore, it is ironic that the most scrutiny allowed for any proposed order would last an hour and a half in Committee, although these very sensitive and controversial issues need to considered carefully.
	Despite the Government's promises of consultation outside the House—obviously, we hear what they say—we must wonder why the Government are seemingly prepared to debate this highly sensitive issue anywhere other than the House. The Constitution Committee of the other place recommended in its recent report, "Surveillance: Citizens and the State" that
	"The Government should introduce a Bill to replace the existing regulatory framework governing the NDNAD. This would provide an opportunity to reassess the length of time DNA profiles are retained under regulatory oversight of the NDNAD."
	We agree. The use, retention and destruction of DNA records and the oversight that sits behind it require detailed primary legislation in their own right, with full and detailed debate and examination in Parliament.
	There is little doubt about the importance of DNA as an evidential tool in prosecuting criminals and bringing them to justice. DNA can form an important part of the evidential case to prove guilt and ensure that serious criminals are brought to justice. The fight against crime—in particular, organised crime and terrorism—depends on the use of modern scientific techniques of investigation and identification. However, as the European Court of Human Rights noted in the case of S and Marper, basic freedoms
	"would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private-life interests."
	That frames this debate. The Government were well and truly on the wrong side of the line, and we would argue that they are still on the wrong side of the line.
	This country claims a pioneering role in the development of DNA technology, and consequently bears a special responsibility in striking the right balance between public protection and the protection of personal liberties and freedoms from intrusion by the state. At the heart of that—and, I believe, the basic starting point when considering what is appropriate in terms of the retention of DNA data—is the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The indefinite retention on the national DNA database of the DNA of people who have never been changed with any crime, or who have been acquitted by a court, is unacceptable in a society founded on that principle. With regard to the national DNA database as currently constituted, that presumption is reversed: a person is always regarded as potentially guilty unless shown to be innocent. Everyone on the database is regarded as a potential suspect.
	Until recently, the Government took the blanket, indiscriminate approach of simply growing the database, viewing that as a good in itself—and the number of profiles on the DNA database has certainly grown, from 2.1 million in 2003 to 5.6 million by the end of March this year. The full impact of that growth becomes clear only when we break the number down by the countries of the United Kingdom. We are talking about some 4 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland, nearly 5 per cent. of the population in Scotland, and nearly 10 per cent. of the population of England and Wales. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, fingerprints and samples, including DNA samples, can be taken from anyone arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station. However, the Home Office has confirmed that more than 1 million people on the database have never been convicted, cautioned, formally warned or reprimanded, as recorded by the police national computer. GeneWatch UK has calculated that there are records of more than 100,000 innocent children on the database. The database contains the records of about 40 per cent. of black men in the UK, as compared to 30 per cent. of Asian men and just 9 per cent. of white men.
	Despite the huge growth in profiles, the number of detected crimes in which a DNA match was available has actually fallen. Between 2002-03 and 2007-08, the number of detections fell from 21,098 to 17,614. The total number of detected crimes in which a DNA match was available or played a part, and the percentage of crimes detected in which a DNA match was available, as opposed to crimes where potential DNA material was collected, have remained static, despite the huge increase in the number of profiles. Simply growing the database has not resulted in a growth in detections. We therefore welcome the Government's acceptance that the status quo is unsustainable. The problem is that it is simply unsupportable to think that such an important issue can be remedied by ministerial edict.
	The Minister will no doubt say that the Government cannot act quickly enough to respond to the judgment of S and Marper, and that they need to go through a public consultation before they can do anything, but I just do not buy that line of argument. If the order-making power was some sort of legislative shortcut pending subsequent primary legislation, it could have included a sunset clause, but the Government have chosen not to include one. The approach is made even more perverse when one considers that the Home Office's consultation document on DNA retention, released just a few weeks ago, envisages that primary legislation will be required to take samples post-conviction, or from UK residents convicted of violent or sexual offences abroad who are returning to the UK. If primary legislation is required for that, surely it is right that basic protections regarding samples, profiles and the DNA database and its oversight should be embodied in statute.
	There are points on which we do agree with the Government. There should be different treatment for the young, in terms of the retention of DNA profiles. The DNA profiles of under-10s should not be retained. DNA samples should be destroyed as soon as practicable once a profile has been taken. Where an adult has been convicted of a recordable offence, DNA should be retained indefinitely. Where consent has been volunteered for DNA profiles to be put on the database, that consent should be capable of being withdrawn. Accordingly, we trust that the Government will support our new clause 31.
	We have long argued for the need to ensure that the police can retrospectively take samples for a longer period after conviction and from those convicted overseas, so we are glad that the Government have responded positively to that call. However, we differ on the retention of profiles on the DNA database of people arrested but never charged with an offence, or of those acquitted of any wrongdoing. The Government argue that in these circumstances it is appropriate to keep the profile—to treat someone as a future potential suspect in a criminal investigation, even though they are supposed to be innocent in the eyes of the law—for between six and 12 years, depending on the nature of the offence for which they were arrested.
	The Government seek to argue this on the basis of the hazard rates and purported patterns of future reoffending, as set out in their consultation document, yet these models are based on individuals convicted of having committed a crime and an assumption that they are relevant to those arrested but never convicted. This fundamental assumption is not fully substantiated. All the Government say is that their assumption is partially supported by analysis from the Jill Dando Institute, but this analysis has not been published and my understanding is that it has yet to be peer reviewed.
	We believe it is appropriate to introduce an approach on DNA retention similar to that introduced in Scotland, where the DNA profiles of those convicted of an offence would be retained only in circumstances where charges relating to a crime of violence or a sexual offence had been brought. In these circumstances DNA profiles could be retained for a maximum period of five years, subject to judicial oversight after an initial period of three years. That is where we differ from the Liberal Democrats' analysis and their proposal. It is interesting to note that the Scottish DNA database has a higher success rate in matching profiles with crime scene samples than the national DNA database.
	We recognise that there may be circumstances in which a serious risk of harm has been identified by the police and where the power to retain DNA information may be appropriate as a means of mitigating that risk, if a court considers that there is sufficient evidence. New clause 32 reflects this approach, and with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we shall test the opinion of the House on it.
	Our amendments may not be perfect, but they demonstrate that it is possible to write these important protections into primary legislation. Government suggestions that that is too hard or inflexible miss the fundamental point that such protections need to be spelled out in this way precisely because it will be harder to change them in the future. That is why we believe these freedoms should be put on a firm statutory footing, and why the House should treat with the utmost suspicion the Government's approach of keeping the issue out of the House and out of sight.

Alan Campbell: I shall respond to the amendments and new clauses tabled by Opposition Members and speak to those tabled by the Government.
	I begin by saying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) that, in line with commitments given by the Home Secretary in her speech in December, I am pleased to confirm that the DNA of all under-10-year-olds has been removed from the database. My right hon. Friend also asked about the security of data on the DNA database. There has not been a single instance of the loss or misuse of data retained on the DNA database. I hope I have reassured him on those points.
	I shall respond to the points raised by Opposition Members in the substance of my remarks. I welcome the aim of new clauses 1, 2 and 3 because they acknowledge that it is important to ensure that the biometric data of those suspected of violent or sexual offences are subject to a different regime of retention and destruction from the biometric data of a person arrested but not convicted. We would, however, have great difficulty supporting the amendments. I shall deal with the technical problems with them and then put them in the context of the wider argument.
	First, the amendments do not clearly define the status of a person who has been released without charge. They could apply to a person released without charge and on bail, or to a person released without charge and informed that no further action would be taken. I can only assume that the latter is the intention of the amendment. The definition of an offence
	"of a violent or sexual nature"
	may be too vague. It may be more appropriate to list the actual offences involved and, therefore, clarify what offence is and what offence is not subject to a specific period of retention for DNA and fingerprints. It is neither correct nor appropriate to amend section 113 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as proposed, because the section allows equivalent legislative provision in part 5 of the Act to be applied to the armed forces, subject to modifications that are considered necessary to cater for the different circumstances in which the armed forces operate. Any amendments in respect of part 5 of the 1984 Act would be reflected in the statutory instrument that applied those provisions to the armed forces.
	Those are technical points. I now turn to the more substantive point about the need to engage the public in any new framework that we propose for the retention of biometric data that are taken during a criminal investigation. I shall also reply to the accusation that we are responding simply to the judgment, because, in fact, we seek to go further than that.
	I recognise that some people who are currently on the national DNA and fingerprint databases who have been arrested but not convicted may well ask why, in the light of the European Court of Human Rights judgment, their samples are not being destroyed. The judgment did not hold that any retention of samples of unconvicted people is unlawful per se; rather, it held that we cannot maintain a blanket scheme of retention that applies to all samples. Moreover, as Members will be aware, the existing law stands until such time as Parliament changes or amends it.
	The contents of the Government's enabling clause will allow for a retention and destruction framework to be put in place to ensure compliance with the European Court judgment within a reasonable time, and for such regulations to be subject to the consideration of both Houses.
	Hon. Members who tabled new clauses 31 and 32 may have done so in the absence of sight of the Government's proposals that were published on 7 May in the consultation paper entitled, "Keeping the right people on the DNA database". It sets out very clearly our proposals to implement the judgment of the European Court in the case of S and Marper, but it also shows that in some areas we have gone further than the judgment requires. One such area is samples.
	It is important to get on the record the fact that we have announced our intention to destroy all samples, whether they were taken from a person who was arrested and not convicted, or arrested and convicted, amounting to about 4.5 million samples. That is in direct response to the level of public concern about the retention of living samples by the criminal justice system. In addition, we have indicated that in future all samples must be destroyed as soon as possible and held only up to a maximum of six months for the purposes of ensuring that an acceptable profile is placed on the DNA database. The proposals that hon. Members have set out in new clause 32 do not make the important distinction between samples and profiles, and they fail to take into account a key area of public concern and an issue that was raised in the S and Marper judgment.

Evan Harris: Does the Minister accept that it would be far better to introduce primary legislation following the—albeit welcome—consultation that he just mentioned? The House would be able, by amendment rather than by resolution after a one-and-a-half hour debate, to give its view on the response to those discussions. That would be the most effective and mature way of developing legislation on these complex topics.

Alan Campbell: We had that debate at length in Committee, and there are several points to make in response to the Opposition's call for a primary legislation route. First, we have to meet the time scale of responding to S and Marper, and our legal advice is that we have a 12-month period, so there would be absolutely no opportunity to introduce any primary legislation in that time. I must also say to the hon. Gentleman that to believe that such a rule has been applied to date is to misunderstand the way in which the current framework has evolved. Such a proposal would set an important precedent, because DNA guidelines and their operation move over time. If he is saying that every time the DNA guidelines change, we must have primary legislation, he misunderstands the way in which the DNA issue moves—and moves very quickly.

Gordon Prentice: Has my Friend consulted the Information Commissioner? If so, what is his view?

Alan Campbell: Of course we consult and take advice. At present, I am not in a position to tell my hon. Friend exactly what that advice is, but I am sure that I will be able to find it and provide it to him in the foreseeable future.
	I turn to retention periods. New clause 34 proposes a retention period in respect of those arrested for violent and sexual offences, but only for a period of three years, subject to potential extension for a further two years on application to the Crown court. New clause 32 proposes a residual power on top of that, allowing a chief police officer to apply to a county court to make an order requiring the retention of a sample for up to five years when there is serious risk of harm to the public or when it would inhibit or disrupt the involvement of the person in the commission of a violent or sexual crime. If the provisions in new clause 32 simply relate to arrests, violent and sexual offences would be capable of a five-year retention period under proposals in its new section 64C. If the threshold of arrest is not involved, the criterion proposed is worrying. I assume that what was intended was a criterion of "risk of serious harm", rather than of "serious risk of harm"; otherwise, such an order could be applied in respect of any situation where there was harm or potential harm. In respect of inhibiting, restricting or disrupting the involvement of a person in the commission of one of those offences, the police already have the necessary powers.
	I turn to the reasoning behind the retention periods that we propose—six years, or 12 years in the case of serious sexual offences. During the consultation period, we have set out the basis on which we have arrived at those decisions. There are two key aspects at work. Those who commit so-called minor offences also tend to commit more serious offences, and vice versa. Secondly, those arrested and not convicted have a propensity to offend—we did not say "reoffend", as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) said we did—comparable to that of those who are arrested and convicted but not given a custodial sentence.
	We are emphatically not losing sight of the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty, and we are not saying that people arrested and not convicted will go on to commit offences in future. What we are saying is that our research suggests that some of them—a greater proportion than in the population at large—do tend to go on to commit offences, including serious offences. If we could identify those people at the point of first arrest, life would be easy. But we cannot, and that is why we propose a proportionate retention period based on the individual's propensity to offend.

David Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Alan Campbell: I shall not, because I am running out of time. Research by the Jill Dando Institute indicates that 52 per cent. of subsequent offending takes place within the first six years of initial conviction, and that two thirds takes place within 12 years. Studies from the United States suggest that it takes up to 15 years for an individual who has been arrested to have the same risk of being arrested again as exists among the general population.
	A point was made about the Scottish model. We did consider that model, which involves shorter retention periods. However, in the light of the research evidence available to us, which did not inform the Scottish Executive's decision, we have decided to propose six-year and 12-year retention periods. We recommend six years for most crimes and 12 years for those with high impact such as serious violent offences and sexual and terrorist-related offences.
	 One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 71, Noes 284.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 32
	 — 
	Retention of samples following arrest

'(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 64A insert—
	"64B Retention of samples
	(1) Subject to subsection (2), where a sample has been taken from a person under this Part, unless such a person has been given consent in accordance with section 64(3AC), all such samples and all information derived from such samples shall be destroyed as soon as possible following a decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the person or on the conclusion of such proceedings otherwise than with a conviction.
	(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply—
	(a) where the record, sample or information in question is of the same kind as a record, a sample or, as the case may be, information lawfully held in relation to the person; or
	(b) where the person is cautioned for a recordable offence or given a warning or reprimand in accordance with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for a recordable offence in connection with the decision not to institute criminal proceedings or following the withdrawal or cessation of criminal proceedings; or
	(c) where sections 64C or 64D apply.
	(3) For the purposes of this section, criminal proceedings shall not be deemed to have concluded until the earlier of the (1) the lapse of any applicable appeal period and (2) a decision is made not to appeal such proceedings.
	64C Retention of samples etc (violent and sexual offences)
	(1) This section applies where any sample has been taken from a person under this Part where criminal proceedings were instituted against such person in respect of a sexual offence or violent offence and such proceedings concluded otherwise than with a conviction or with the person being cautioned for a recordable offence or given a warning or reprimand in accordance with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for a recordable offence.
	(2) Subject to subsections (6) and (7) below, the sample and any information derived therefrom shall be destroyed no later than:
	(a) 3 years following the conclusion of the proceedings ("the initial retention date"); or
	(b) such later date as may be ordered under subsection (3).
	(3) On application made by a chief officer of police within the period of 3 months before the initial retention date, the Crown Court, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, may make an order amending, or further amending, the date of destruction of the relevant sample and any information derived therefrom.
	(4) An order under subsection (3) shall not specify a date more than 2 years later than the initial retention date.
	(5) Any decisions of the Crown Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal within 21 days of such decision.
	(6) Subsection (2) does not apply where—
	(a) an application under subsection (3) above has been made but has not been determined.
	(b) the period within which an appeal may be brought under subsection (5) above against a decision to refuse an application has not elapsed; or
	(c) such an appeal has been brought but has not been withdrawn or finally determined.
	(7) Where—
	(a) the period within which an appeal referred to in subsection (5) has elapsed without such an appeal being brought; or
	(b) such an appeal is brought and is withdrawn or finally determined without any extension of the time period referred to in subsection (2),
	the sample and any information derived therefrom shall be destroyed as soon as possible thereafter.
	(8) For the purposes of this Part a "sexual offence" or "violent offence" shall mean such offences of a violent or sexual nature as shall be set out in any order made by the Secretary of State with reference to this section.
	64D Retention of Samples - Residual Power
	(1) On application by a chief officer of police, the Crown Court may make an order requiring the retention of a sample taken from a person and any information derived therefrom in circumstances where such a sample and any information derived therefrom would otherwise be required to be destroyed if it has reasonable grounds to believe that:
	(a) there is a serious risk of harm to the public or a section of the public; and
	(b) such retention would prevent, inhibit, restrict or disrupt involvement by the person in the commission of a sexual offence or violent offence.
	(2) An order under this section is not to be in force for more than 5 years beginning with the date of the commencement of the order.
	(3) Any decision of the Crown Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal within 21 days of such decision.
	(4) Where an application has been made for an order under this section, the relevant sample and any information derived therefrom shall not be destroyed until such application and any appeal thereof has been determined.
	(3) At end of section 113(1) insert—
	"provided always that the protections in Part 5 relating to the retention of samples and any information derived therefrom shall also be applied to persons investigated or under arrest under such Acts.".'.— (James Brokenshire.)
	 Brought up.
	 Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	 The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 352.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 95
	 — 
	Retention and destruction of samples etc: England and Wales

Amendment made: 112, page 117, line 29, at end insert—
	'(4) Before laying such a draft before Parliament, the Secretary of State must consult—
	(a) the Association of Police Authorities,
	(b) the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland,
	(c) the General Council of the Bar,
	(d) the Law Society of England and Wales,
	(e) the Institute of Legal Executives, and
	(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 97
	 — 
	Retention and destruction of samples etc: Northern Ireland

Amendment made: 113, page 119, line 5, at end insert—
	'(10A) Before making regulations under this Article, the Secretary of State must publish a draft of the regulations and consider any representations made to the Secretary of State about them.'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

New Clause 20
	 — 
	Interim injunctions: duration

'(1) An interim injunction granted under sections 38 or 39 must include the period for which it shall have effect.
	(2) The period specified in subsection (1) above must not exceed four weeks.
	(3) Interim injunctions granted under sections 38 or 39 may not be renewed.'.— (Mr. Dismore.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Dismore: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 37, in clause 32, page 26, line, leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
	Amendment 40, page 26, line 6, leave out 'on the balance of probabilities' and insert 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
	Amendment 201, page 26, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment 38, page 26, line 13, at end insert—
	'(3A) The third condition is that the applicant has demonstrated that prosecution of the respondent for a criminal offence was considered but not proceeded with.'.
	Amendment 39, page 26, line 13, at end insert—
	'(3B) The fourth condition is that the respondent is aged 18 or over.'.
	Amendment 202, page 26, line 17, leave out paragraph (b).
	Government amendment 60
	Amendment 149, line 20, at end add—
	'(6) In this section "gang" means a group of people who see themselves or are seen by others as a discernable group and exhibit any one or more of the following factors—
	(a) engaging in criminal activity;
	(b) identifying with a particular geographical area;
	(c) having some form of identifying organisational feature;
	(d) being in conflict with other similar gangs.'.
	Amendment 204, in clause 33, page 26, line 32, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
	Amendment 205, page 27, line 4, leave out 'and requirements'.
	Amendment 206, page 27, line 9, leave out 'or (3)'.
	Amendment 207, in clause 34, page 27, line 13, leave out 'or requirement'.
	Amendment 43, page 27, line 14, leave out from 'injunction,' to end of line 16 and insert
	'the period for which it shall be in force.'.
	Amendment 208, page 27, line 16, at end insert
	'except that no injunction shall remain in force for a period longer than two years from the date it is made.'.
	Amendment 42, page 27, line 16, at end insert—
	'(2A) The period specified in subsection (2) above must not exceed three years.
	(2B) Injunctions granted under section 32 may not be renewed.'.
	Amendment 209, page 27, line 23, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment 210, page 27, line 26, leave out 'or requirement'.
	Government amendment 61
	Amendment 150, in clause 36, page 28, line 10, at end insert—
	'(c) any primary care trust, mental health trust or other NHS authority that the applicant chief officer considers would be appropriate to consult; and
	(d) any youth offending team, local probation service or office of the National Offender Management Service that the applicant chief officer considers would be appropriate to consult.'.
	Amendment 151, page 28, line 16, at end insert—
	'(c) any primary care trust, mental health trust or other NHS authority that the constable considers would be appropriate to consult; and
	(d) any youth offending team, local probation service or office of the National Offender Management Service that the constable considers would be appropriate to consult.'.
	Amendment 152, page 28, line 22, at end insert—
	'(c) any primary care trust, mental health trust or other NHS authority that the applicant local authority considers would be appropriate to consult; and
	(d) any youth offending team, local probation service or office of the National Offender Management Service that the applicant local authority considers would be appropriate to consult.'.
	Government amendments 62 and 63

Andrew Dismore: The new clause was tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Sharma) and me on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in order to give effect to the recommendations we made in our 15th report. The Government responded to them only today. The amending provisions relate to the Bill's treatment of gang-related violence. In the report we expressed our concern about the fact that provisions highly significant for individual liberties and human rights appeared not when the Bill was first published, but only in the later stages of the Committee proceedings.
	During the Committee stage, the Government explained that provisions were needed because of a judgment by the Court of Appeal in the case of Birmingham city council  v. Shafi. In that case, the council had sought civil injunctions against individuals who were alleged to have been involved in gang-related offences and public nuisance. The Court of Appeal noted that the terms of the injunctions sought were identical, or almost identical, to those of antisocial behaviour orders. It noted the "striking feature" that the local authority sought ASBOs against those aged under 18 and injunctions in identical terms against those aged over 18. The court recognised that Parliament had laid down a number of specific safeguards applying to the grant of ASBOs, some of which might not apply to injunctions granted at common law.
	The court held that the council should therefore seek an ASBO so that
	"the detailed checks and balances developed by Parliament and in the decided cases"
	would apply. The court considered that it would be bizarre if a different standard of proof applied. As the order sought by the council was essentially the same as an ASBO, the lower court had been correct to apply the same standard of proof that applied in proceedings for an ASBO. The court had to be sure that the defendants had acted in the antisocial way alleged. The court recognised that there might be cases in which the injunctions sought were not identical, or almost identical, to an ASBO, or which involved more complicated facts. In such cases, the civil standard might apply.
	The first issue that we raised was the fact that there was no definition of what constituted a gang in the first place. Government amendment 60 deals with that, although I question whether it is sufficiently precise. I note that the Opposition have tabled an amendment on the same issue which is a little more precise. We were told that guidance would be laid before Parliament as soon as possible before the legislation came into force, for the purpose of interpretation.
	We were anxious to ensure that the provisions were not open-ended, and that they were necessary. Given the findings of the Court of Appeal, we asked the Minister to explain why the existing law was inadequate, and why it was proposed to use civil law to tackle what was effectively criminal behaviour. We requested an explanation of why the Government had opted not to require those seeking an injunction to explain why criminal prosecution in an individual case was impossible. That is the purpose of amendment 38. In our view, the Government have failed to provide a satisfactory explanation of the need for the provisions, including the rather bizarre clause 32(3)(b), which is apparently intended to protect the respondent from himself. The Government have not published any statistically robust evidence showing why the existing law is inadequate.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am not here to defend the Government. My organisation, the Centre for Social Justice, produced an important report on gangs and gang-related violence after its members had travelled to Boston, Los Angeles, New York, Liverpool and Glasgow to see what was going on in those places. A key principle, which I think the Government have now generally adopted—although there are some faults in the arrangement—is that the provision is required for the simple reason that we are trying to get ahead of the problem. We need to identify people who may be at risk of violence, and who may end up being in street gangs. Where this has been applied, it has worked: it has worked in Boston and Los Angeles, for instance.

Andrew Dismore: I shall come to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. He has given us some evidence in support of what the Government propose, but so far we have not been given such evidence by the Government. All that we have been given are anecdotal explanations based on the Birmingham cases. If there is robust evidence from overseas, I am surprised that the Government have not produced it in response to our report or our earlier correspondence with the Minister.
	The Minister told us that using the criminal law to deal with gang-related violence remained the preferred option. However, the Government considered it not advisable to make it a prerequisite for the Crown Prosecution Service to explain why it was impossible to charge an individual beforehand. The Minister said that the Government were clear that injunctions should not short-circuit the criminal justice process, but we were very concerned about the issue.
	In earlier reports, we have drawn attention to the unsustainability in the long term of resort to methods of control which are outside the criminal process, and which avoid the appropriate standards of fairness. Gang injunctions constitute another step in that direction. In our view, the civil law is an inappropriate tool to deal with what is effectively criminal behaviour. We are pleased to note the Government's commitment to use of the criminal law as the preferred option, but it worries us that the Bill does not make that explicit, and that there are no safeguards in the Bill to ensure that it occurs. In particular, there is no requirement for those seeking an injunction to demonstrate that criminal prosecution has been considered as an option first.
	We recommend in amendment 38 that the Bill be amended to impose an express duty, throughout the period during which the injunction has effect, to ensure that the question of criminal prosecution is reviewed and is kept under consideration when there is a reasonable prospect of successful prosecution of the subject of the injunction. We have raised a similar issue time and again in relation to control orders. It seems that once a control order has come into effect, little effort is made to prosecute those involved.
	I am particularly concerned about the impact of the Bill on children and young people, as amendment 39 makes clear. It is in this regard that I consider the Government's response to be weakest. We welcome the Government's commitment not to amend the Bill to cover children and young people explicitly. However, we do not agree with their contention that part 4 will not be applied to children or young people. We recommend that the Bill be amended to make that clear, and to set a minimum age limit of 18 for respondents.

Iain Duncan Smith: We spent a lot of time on our report. One of the reasons why we recommended no age limit of 18 was that street gangs, as defined in places such as America, Liverpool and Glasgow, consist of people ranging from children of 11 to men of 26. It is crucial to use civil orders to deal with those people in order to take them out of the gangs. If we wait until they are 18 and on a criminal charge, we shall have to wait until they have done what they intend to do, which will make the position much more dangerous.

Andrew Dismore: The problem with the right hon. Gentleman's contention is that the process is likely to bring the law into disrepute. Injunctions against those under 18 are unenforceable. According to the response that we received from the Government today,
	"Injunctions must be enforceable and it is unlikely in practice that these injunctions would be enforceable for under 18s because the court cannot fine someone without a source of income."
	The Government also refer to the penalties for those over 18, which could involve fines or imprisonment. They say:
	"a court cannot sentence an individual under the age of 18 to detention...for a civil contempt of court. Therefore where when a gang member is under 18 and is without an independent and legitimate source of income, the court would be unable to sanction any breach and so would not grant an injunction."
	That constitutes a paper tiger. That is why we have ASBOs.
	The Government go on to say that
	"there may be occasions where it would be both appropriate and enforceable",
	and that
	"whilst these instances are likely to be rare",
	they want to retain their provisions in the Bill. However, we have not been given an example of where those provisions would be enforceable. If injunctions cannot be enforced, or are refused because they cannot be enforced, there is no point in having the power in the first place. It will simply bring the law into disrepute.
	The other issue that concerns us particularly, as is reflected in amendment 40, is the applicable standards of due process. Breach of an injunction is a civil offence which is treated as civil contempt of court, but must be proved to the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". In the leading ASBO case, although ASBOs were considered to be civil orders—like injunctions—the House of Lords upheld the argument that the proceedings relating to ASBOs should carry the criminal standard of proof. Magistrates should apply that standard: they must be sure that the individual in question acted in an antisocial manner before they can make the order. We believe that similar standards should apply to injunctions which are very akin to ASBOs.
	The analogy with ASBOs is particularly acute given the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Shafi case, which recognised that ASBOs in identical terms could be sought. Some of the proposed injunctions are identical to or more severe than ASBOs, which require proof on the criminal standard. If they are to be more demanding than an ASBO, the argument that they should require the criminal standard of proof is all the stronger.

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman must have seen in his surgeries, as I have in mine, numerous people who have been victims of antisocial behaviour on the part of gangs, collections of young people, or whatever we want to call them. Why is he trying to make it difficult to enforce order and peace for the benefit of the law-abiding community?

Andrew Dismore: That is not the point. What I am trying to do is ensure that when we introduce draconian powers, we make certain that the individual concerned is subject to those draconian powers. That is the view that the courts have expressed time and again. We should bear in mind the debate in the country more widely about civil liberties, for this is a civil liberties argument. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we go down the route of the civil standard and conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, people have been involved in extremely violent criminal behaviour.
	If we go down that route, we will run the risk of a major infringement of our civil liberties. If there is evidence of that, I think the criminal standard ought to be applied, bearing in mind the severe restrictions available through the injunction process and the fact that a breach of an injunction will be a criminal offence. As I have said, so far as young people are concerned the injunction process is pretty pointless; the ASBO is the only way in which can be dealt with, and, as the House of Lords has said, that should be judged by the criminal standard.
	The other issue that I particularly want to raise is set out in amendment 43 and new clause 20: the duration of an injunction. Injunctions can be of indefinite duration—they can go on for 10, 15 or 20 years—if there is no maximum period. We have tabled this amendment and new clause primarily because we think it is important for the House to have the opportunity to consider whether there should be a maximum term. That is especially the case in relation to the interim injunction process. That is not subject to a maximum time limit, but the whole point of an interim injunction—which can be obtained without notice to the individual concerned, and on a lower standard—is that it should be interim and subject to a proper hearing fairly promptly afterwards to determine whether it should be converted into a full injunction.
	So far, we have been unconvinced by the Government's arguments as to why injunctions of indefinite duration are necessary. They say that if there were a maximum time limit—we have put forward a suggestion as to what it should be, merely for purposes of debate—those applying for the injunctions would automatically apply for the finite maximum period. The alternative argument, however, is that if there were a maximum period, the investigators applying for the injunction would then have to start thinking hard about getting the necessary evidence for a criminal prosecution, rather than relying on the softer option of the available indefinite injunction.

Vernon Coaker: We do not have much time to speak on these matters, and as I will not be able to respond in detail to my hon. Friend's remarks, may I put on the record the fact that we will look at the issue of time limits and duration in respect of injunctions?

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As a result of that assurance, I do not feel the need to put my argument any more strongly today. I am aware that other Members wish to speak, so I shall now bring my remarks to a close.

James Brokenshire: As many Members will be aware, the background to the Government's gang injunction proposals is the approach in Birmingham, where injunctions under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 were deployed to combat gang-related violence. Discussions of their use with West Midlands police and Birmingham city council have made it clear that they regarded the injunction as a useful tool to combat serious gang activity, basing a claim on the nuisance caused by gang activity and seeking to bring this within the remit of the Act. In many respects, the use of the injunction to disrupt gang activity is a model based on the tools used to disrupt gangs in Boston, where the injunction is seen as an important mechanism available to law enforcement officers.
	We should be under no illusions about the nature of some of the challenges currently facing young people in this country. The children's charity NCH—now Action for Children—highlights the shocking situation of young people growing up with the real fear of becoming a victim of crime, particularly violent crime. Therefore, we are certainly prepared to consider the application of injunctive relief to communities and neighbourhoods. The House will be aware that injunctions are used to prevent domestic violence, for example, and their application in a preventive sense in respect of harm is understood by the courts. However, in the case of Birmingham city council  v. Marnie Shaft and Tyrone Ellis the use of section 222 injunctions was ruled to be inappropriate by Nottingham county court, and that decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal last October.
	As I said in Committee, I understand why the Government have thought it appropriate to bring these proposals before the House. One of the most insidious aspects of the organised criminal gang structure is that gangs consciously focus their recruitment of new members on some of the most vulnerable members of society, such as those with poor educational attainment, weak family structures, addictions and mental illness. They also try to undermine the family ties that do actually exist.
	Various approaches have been taken to combat gang crime and pernicious gang activity in different parts of the country, reflecting the fact that gangs are different in their structure and nature in the different areas in which they operate. It is right, for example, that Birmingham should be able to adopt a strategy different from that followed in Manchester, Liverpool or London, based on the particular problems it experiences and the nature of the relevant gang activity. Some gangs are simply interested in territory; others are motivated by broader criminal intent and the wish to fund a lifestyle. What they all tend to have in common is a sense of identity, often using colours to distinguish which gang people are part of, and aping some of the activities of gangs in the US.
	The key question is whether the injunctions sought by the Bill are appropriate, and in particular whether they overstep the line from being preventive to being punitive, with all of the consequences in human rights law that that would impose. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has made a number of important points in its fifteenth report, and I am only sorry that the response to it—promised in the Home Secretary's statement today—had not reached the Vote Office prior to the commencement of the debate on this Bill, so that Members have not had a proper opportunity to assess and assimilate the Government response. I hope the Minister will be able to set out some of the Government's thinking on some of the key issues that have been highlighted, in particular the application of the criminal standard. The Minister will be aware of the McCann case, as we have discussed it at length.
	The issue of the treatment of children is also relevant. It is my clear understanding that these injunctions would not be suitable for application to children, but from my brief look at the Government response to the Joint Committee it appeared that there was some suggestion that they could be used in certain restricted circumstances. We need to have a clearer understanding of the application of these provisions if they are intended to operate in that way; the Minister will be aware of issues in respect of enforcement and the fact that they would come not before the youth court but before the High Court or county court. There is certainly a very different enforcement regime governing breach of what is a civil injunction than breach of an ASBO, for example, which would be treated as a criminal matter and the individual concerned would be brought before a youth court.
	The Minister will be aware that the injunctions seek to impose positive conditions on the recipient. That goes much further than what might be considered to be protective, either for the individual concerned or for the community affected. These provisions will inevitably be challenged, ultimately before the courts, on their compliance with applicable human rights law. The Minister needs to satisfy the House that they are likely to withstand this challenge. This is particularly the case for injunctions that are designed to be open-ended in duration and without formal review within a specific period as to their continuing suitability or necessity. I heard, however, what the Minister said about this being a live issue that the Government are looking into, and I welcome that.
	On a slightly more conciliatory note, I should acknowledge that the Government have sought to address some of the concerns highlighted in Committee. These injunctions centre around the concept of gang-related violence but without defining what is understood by the term "gang", with Liberty asking:
	"Is it simply a group of young people wearing hoodies?"
	We understood from what the Minister said then that it was not, and the Government have now brought forward an amendment to provide some greater clarity, but we need still more clarity. We have tabled an amendment in relation to this issue, and the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and the Centre for Social Justice has set out some of the alternative thinking. The definition of the term "gang" is important if we are to define the application of these provisions properly, so that they are used in a manner appropriate for serious gang activity.
	We also believe it is appropriate for relevant NHS bodies, and for probation and other relevant agencies, to be involved in the consideration of these injunctions. I note that the Minister has introduced further amendments to address those issues, which we welcome.
	The further issues and concerns highlighted in Committee and in some of the amendments introduced today are important, and a response to them is necessary. Too many young lives are being lost as a result of gang-related disputes over postcode territories or minor disagreements where a perverse notion of "respect" is seen to have been challenged. We need to be satisfied that these injunctions are appropriate, and the Government still need to make out their case for certain important aspects.

Paul Holmes: As was said during the programme motion debate, this complex issue was introduced late in the Public Bill Committee—in the last week. That meant that we could not discuss it in full and prepare properly in Committee, and we have a derisory 30 minutes to discuss it now, so clearly nobody can be satisfied with the amount of scrutiny that we can give it at this point.

John Gummer: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that both Ministers have excused their inability to answer questions by saying that they do not have enough time? Is it not time that they realised that the time is in their hands, and that the reason why they do not have enough time is that they have denied themselves that opportunity?

Paul Holmes: Absolutely, but as the case was well made during the debate on the programme motion, I shall not go back over that ground.
	The injunctions on gang members were said by the Government to be very effective in Birmingham, but Nottingham county court and then the Court of Appeal ruled that, first, the evidence being used to justify such draconian controls on people was too flimsy to justify them, and secondly, that existing powers and legislation were adequate.
	In the short time that we had to debate this matter in Committee—perhaps this will also be the case in the two or three minutes that the Minister will have to answer today—the Government have in no way been able to make an adequate case as to why they think the existing legislation is inadequate and needs this draconian step forward; why such serious restrictions, which could almost amount to a control order, depending on how they are imposed, should have a lesser burden of proof—the civil burden of proof rather than the criminal standard—and why the state should protect people against their will in some cases, other than, obviously, in cases involving mental health legislation.
	The Government have not given us any evidence, either, that they have considered the USA evidence from California and Chicago. The Stanford Law Review examined the approaches there, which have been in use for 20-odd years in some cases, and said that gang injunctions appear to work, but in fact simply move the problem to the next neighbourhood and do not have any effect, except to stigmatise large groups of people. It cited the case involving a 16-year-old, in which the police told the school involved that he was a cousin of some gang members who lived on his street and was thus probably in the gang, so he ended up being suspended from school, although there was no evidence that he had any involvement at all.
	The university of Manchester has done research in Britain that shows similar stigmatisation occurring. It has studied the American examples and shown how the gang injunction process in America has slipped into mainstream law. In Committee, I, like other hon. Members, raised the issue of the way in which various pieces of legislation—counter-terrorism legislation—have similarly slipped into use in mainstream law in terms of controlling peaceful demonstrations at arms fairs, environmental events and so on.
	Finally, the Government have not explained why, given that most of the examples the Minister gave at the start of the debate in Committee involved 15, 16 and 17-year-olds carrying guns and knifing each other, this legislation does not apply to anybody under 18 and, as has been said, is therefore a toothless paper tiger. Liberal Democrats believe that, as I argued in Committee, for such serious restraints on people's liberty, which potentially amount to control orders, a criminal standard of evidence, and time limits, should apply to injunctions. We expressed doubt about the state imposing draconian restrictions on someone "for their own protection", so we tabled our amendments, which are very similar to the conclusions reached by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the amendments that resulted from those.
	Given the derisory and insulting amount of time— 30 minutes—that we have had to debate this matter today, which means that the Minister will barely be able to answer, I do not propose to push the amendments standing in my name and those of my colleagues to a vote. I know that in Committee the Minister feared that this provision would not get through the House of Lords. I hope that that House will take note of what was said in Committee, and what has been said—very briefly—today, and will go through this in great detail and at great length. I hope that either it will insist that the Minister makes some very convincing arguments, which we have not yet heard, or it will radically alter the Bill when it reaches the other place.

Iain Duncan Smith: I shall be brief, because everyone is waiting for the Minister to sum up. The only reason why I wish to speak is that I produced a report, having sent a number of people around America and the UK, whose outcome tends towards this approach. The Government have drawn some of the provisions in this particular area from the report, and I therefore congratulate them on having read it. They are going in the right direction, but I wish to make two points.
	The UK has a major and growing problem with street gangs. The way in which cities in other parts of the world, particularly in America, have been successful in tackling the problem has been based on the idea of getting to younger kids earlier, on a looser parameter—not to make criminals of them; quite the contrary: the aim is to draw them out of criminality. The voluntary sector is involved, these people go into remedial education and they are got out of the gangs. Very few of them end up going through the criminal process in Boston—only the ringleaders do—and this approach is crucial in pulling them out of that once they have been identified. What follows is the necessary step of other organisations in the police stations picking them up straight away, and that has yet to be resolved.
	The definition is crucial in all of this; the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was right to say that we need a clear definition. We know that the Home Office has a definition and that it has stuck it back in as an amendment, but we do not think it is sufficient; we think that the better amendment is one based more on what has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), because it is drawn directly from our report. There was a reason for that definition too, because we drew that from what people in Boston, New York, Glasgow and Liverpool, where there had been remarkable success, said to us.
	The point about the definition is first, that it must be good, and secondly, that all countries should use it. The Home Office definition is not used by every police force—it gets changed—but it should be universal, so I urge the Government to get the definition right and make it universal. I say to the Government and to colleagues on both sides of the House that gangs are a major problem. My area of Waltham Forest has seen murders and continuing violence from street gangs, and the situation is getting worse, not better. The police are tearing their hair out over this, and they need some help and support. Tackling this issue needs all the Government agencies, as well as the police, to operate, so I congratulate the Government on making the right moves forward, although much remains to be done.

Vernon Coaker: I wish to make a couple of quick points in the time available to me. I thank all the Members who have spoken, albeit briefly, because some important points have been made. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), because we have tried to draw on the work that he has done.
	Before I deal with the issue of under-18s, I wish to make another point. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) asked about the evidence. In Birmingham, the injunctions were used for over-18s, not under-18s. In Handsworth-Lozells-Newtown, the level of robberies in the four months prior to the injunctions averaged 55 a month—compared with 33 a month while the injunctions were in place; after the injunctions were removed, the level rose again to 48 a month. In Aston-Nechells, an average of 11 firearms incidents took place in the four months preceding the orders, compared with four for the period when the orders were in place, and after the court judgment the figure rose to nine—

Paul Holmes: rose—

Vernon Coaker: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall continue.
	Firearms usage in the city centre dropped from eight incidents in July 2007 to one in September 2007, but again, after the injunctions were removed firearms usage increased, leading to a peak of nine incidents in May 2008. We thought that that evidence demonstrated that the injunctions had made an impact in respect of over-18s and that, given the fact that the courts had said that Birmingham had exceeded its powers, we ought to bring something forward to enable this approach to be used across the country.
	I am not a lawyer, but lawyers tell me that there is an issue to address about using civil injunctions for under-18s and that it arises from the inability, in most cases, to enforce any breach. As that would be a civil contempt of court, one cannot imprison under-18s for it, and somebody has to be able to pay a fine in a legal way, and not many of those who would be subject to one of these injunctions would. I have said that the Home Office is looking to see how it can introduce similar legislation to deal with the under-18s issue in due course, and we will certainly try to do that.
	The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and the hon. Member for Hornchurch asked about definitions. We have included a definition of a "gang" in the Bill, but it will need to be debated. I am sure that as it is debated, as the Bill goes through Parliament, we will be able to improve it still further, but we have started the process and I hope that we can end up with something that we would all want. We are looking, as we said we would, at putting guidance before the House to ensure that people are properly informed about the use of these injunctions, and we have widened the number of people who will be consulted on whether or not the injunctions are used.
	I agree absolutely with those who say that gangs are a major problem in our society in some parts of our cities. These injunctions will be a useful tool with which the police and local authorities will be able to combat some of the most serious and damaging individuals in our society and—
	 Two and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	 Question negatived.
	 The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 32
	 — 
	Injunctions to prevent gang-related violence

Amendment made: 60, page 26, line 19, leave out from first 'of' to end of line 20 and insert
	', or is otherwise related to, the activities of a group that—
	(a) consists of at least 3 people,
	(b) uses a name, emblem or colour or has any other characteristic that enables its members to be identified by others as a group, and
	(c) is associated with a particular area.'.— (Mr. Coaker.)

Clause 36
	 — 
	Consultations by applicants for injunctions

Amendment made: 61, page 28, line 4, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
	'( ) The consultation requirement is that the applicant must consult—
	(a) any local authority, and any chief officer of police, that the applicant thinks it appropriate to consult, and
	(b) any other body or individual that the applicant thinks it appropriate to consult.'.— (Mr. Coaker.)

Clause 45
	 — 
	Guidance

Amendment made: 62, page 31, line 5, at end insert—
	'( ) The Secretary of State must lay any guidance issued or revised under this section before Parliament.'.— (Mr. Coaker.)

Clause 47
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendment made: 63, page 31, line 24, at end insert—
	"consultation requirement" has the meaning given by section 36(2);'.— (Mr. Coaker.)

New Clause 22
	 — 
	Penalty for contravening notice relating to encrypted information

'(1) Section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) (failure to comply with notice relating to encrypted information) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (5A)(a) after "case" insert "or a child indecency case".
	(3) After subsection (5B) insert—
	"(6) In subsection (5A) "a child indecency case" means a case in which the grounds specified in the notice to which the offence relates as the grounds for imposing a disclosure requirement were or included a belief that the imposition of the requirement was necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting an offence under any of the provisions listed in subsection (7).
	(7) Those provisions are—
	(a) section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (showing or taking etc an indecent photograph of a child: England and Wales);
	(b) Article 3 of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17)) (corresponding offence for Northern Ireland);
	(c) section 52 or 52A of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (showing or taking etc or possessing an indecent photograph of a child: Scotland);
	(d) section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possessing an indecent photograph of a child: England and Wales);
	(e) Article 15 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence, Etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1847 (N.I. 17)) (corresponding offence for Northern Ireland)."
	(4) The amendments made by this section apply in relation to cases in which the section 49 notice was given after the commencement of this section.'.— (Mr. Campbell.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Alan Campbell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 4— Loitering: decriminalisation of under 18 year olds—
	'(1) The Street Offences Act 1959 (c. 57) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) of section 1, after "prostitute", insert "aged 18 or over"'.
	New clause 7— Protection of children (encrypted material)—
	'(1) Section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) (failure to comply with a notice) is amended as follows—
	(a) in subsection 5A, after paragraph (a), insert—
	"(aa) where subsection 5C applies, five years;",
	(b) after subsection 5B, insert—
	"(5C) This section applies where—
	(a) the offender has been previously convicted of a relevant sexual offence,
	(b) an indecent photograph of a child as been found in his possession, or
	(c) the court is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the protected information may contain an indecent photograph of a child.
	(5D) For the purposes of subsection (5C)—
	"relevant sexual offence" means an offence under—
	(a) section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) (indecent photographs of children);
	(b) section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (possession of indecent photographs of a child);
	(c) section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) (penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc) in relation to goods prohibited to be imported under section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 (c. 36) (indecent or obscene articles), if the prohibited goods included indecent photographs of persons under 16;
	(d) sections 48 to 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) (abuse of children through prostitution or pornography) where the victim was under 18 and involved in pornography;
	"indecent photograph of a child" has the same definition as in sections 1 and 7 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) and for the avoidance of doubt includes a reference to a pseudo-photograph of a child or a tracing of an indecent photograph within the meaning of section 7(4A) of that Act.".
	(2) In Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42), after paragraph 35 insert—
	"(36) An offence under s. 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) where subsection (5C) applies."'.
	New clause 25— Paying for sexual services of a prostitute known to be trafficked or coerced: England and Wales—
	'After section 53 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) insert—
	"53A Paying for sexual services of a prostitute known to be trafficked or coerced: England and Wales
	(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
	(a) A makes or promises payment for, or uses, the sexual services of prostitute (B), and
	(b) A knows, or ought to know,
	(i) that B is the victim of trafficking.
	(ii) that the sexual services have been provided through coercion of B,
	(iii) that B has provided sexual services in order to gain access to controlled drugs, or
	(iv) that a third party has influenced the activity of B by direction or instruction in circumstances where B does not freely consent to such direction or instruction.
	(2) It is irrelevant where the sexual services have been or will be provided.
	(3) In this section, 'trafficking' means the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.
	(4) In this section, 'coercion of B' includes—
	(a) violence against B or another person,
	(b) threats against B or another person, or
	(c) intimidation of B.
	(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."'.
	New clause 26— Paying for sexual services of a prostitute known to be trafficked or coerced: Northern Ireland—
	'After Article 64 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 1769) (N.I. 12)) insert—
	"64A Paying for sexual services of a prostitute known to be trafficked or coerced: Northern Ireland
	(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
	(a) A makes or promises payment for, or uses, the sexual services of prostitute (B), and
	(b) A knows, or ought to know,
	(i) that B is the victim of trafficking.
	(ii) that the sexual services have been provided through coercion of B,
	(iii) that B has provided sexual services in order to gain access to controlled drugs, or
	(iv) that a third party has influenced the activity of B by direction or instruction in circumstances where B does not freely consent to such direction or instruction.
	(2) It is irrelevant where the sexual services have been or will be provided.
	(3) In this section, 'trafficking' means the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.
	(4) In this section, 'coercion of B' includes—
	(a) violence against B or another person,
	(b) threats against B or another person, or
	(c) intimidation of B.
	(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."'.
	New clause 37— Definition of a brothel—
	'(1) The Sexual Offences Act 1956 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 33A insert—
	"33B Definition of a brothel
	(1) Premises shall not be regarded as a brothel where—
	(a) no more than two prostitutes, with or without a maid, are working together or separately on any given day; and
	(b) each prostitute retains control over her or his individual earnings from the prostitution carried out at the premises.
	(2) In this section 'prostitute' has the meaning given by section 51(2) of the Sexual Offence Act 2003."'.
	New clause 38— Decriminalisation of associated workers in brothels—
	'(1) The Sexual Offences Act 1956 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 33A insert—
	"33B Associated workers in brothels
	For the purposes of section 33 and 33A, a person who is not directly involved in the provision of sexual services is not to be treated as assisting in the management of a brothel by reason only of being employed in a brothel."'.
	Amendment 142, in page 15, line 25, leave out clause 13.
	Amendment 211, in clause 13, page 15, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 16 and insert—
	'"53A Paying for sexual services of a trafficked prostitute
	(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
	(a) A makes or promises payment for the sexual services of a prostitute (B), and
	(b) B has been trafficked, and
	(c) A is aware, or ought to be aware, that B has been trafficked.
	(2) Whether A ought to be aware that B has been trafficked is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B has been trafficked.
	(3) It is irrelevant where in the world the sexual services are to be provided and whether those services are provided."'.
	Government amendment 46.
	Government amendment 47, page 15, line 30, leave out from '(B),' to end of line 32 and insert—
	'(b) a third person (C) has used force, deception or threats of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services for which A has made or promised payment, and
	(c) C acted for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).'.
	Amendment (a) to Government amendment 47, in line 2, leave out 'of a kind likely to induce or encourage' and insert 'which caused'.
	Amendment 235, page 15, line 31, at beginning insert
	'A knows or ought to know that'.
	Amendment 236, page 15, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).
	Government amendments 48 and 49.
	Amendment 237, page 16, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	'(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.'.
	Amendment 215, page 16, line 4, at end add—
	'(5) For the purposes of this section "force" includes coercion by threats or other psychological means including exploitation of vulnerability.'.
	Amendment 143, in page 16, line 5, leave out clause 14.
	Government amendment 50.
	Government amendment 51, in clause 14, page 16, line 11, leave out from '(B),' to end of line 13 and insert—
	'(b) a third person (C) has used force, deception or threats of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services for which A has made or promised payment, and
	(c) C acted for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).'.
	Amendment (a) to Government amendment 51, in line 2, leave out 'of a kind likely to induce or encourage' and insert 'which caused'.
	Amendment 238, page 16, line 12, at beginning insert
	'A knows or ought to know that'.
	Amendment 239, page 16, line 17, leave out paragraph (b).
	Government amendments 52 and 53.
	Amendment 240, page 16, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	'(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.'.
	Amendment 216, page 16, line 23, at end add—
	'(5) For the purposes of this section "force" includes coercion by threats or other psychological means including exploitation of vulnerability.'.
	Amendment 6, in clause 15, page 16, line 32, leave out 'three months' and insert 'one week'.
	Amendment 7, page 17, line 1, leave out clause 16.
	Amendment 194, in clause 25, page 22, leave out lines 1 to 3.
	Government amendments 54 to 59.
	Amendment 199, in schedule 3, page 149, line 3, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2.
	Government amendment 119.

Alan Campbell: First, I want to deal with the matter of encryption keys. New clause 22 and amendment 119 are together intended to have the same effect as new clause 7, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I want to place on record our gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this area and for the way in which he has pursued this point.
	New clause 22 and amendment 119 relate to the maximum sentences that can be imposed when people fail to comply with a notice relating to encrypted information issued under part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Specifically, the amendments raise the maximum sentence on indictment from two years' to five years' imprisonment in child indecency cases. At present, the sentence in such cases is limited to two years. Given that sentences for child indecency offences can be far higher, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley has pointed out, we are proposing to raise the sentence for failing to comply with a notice to five years. In addition, the amendments allow individuals convicted of failing to comply with a notice or tipping off in connection with such a notice to be made subject, in appropriate cases, to a sexual offences prevention order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
	We have adopted a slightly different approach from that proposed by the hon. Gentleman, because of the technical problems with the drafting of his new clause. We have also not included all the offences that were in new clause 7. That is not because they are not important offences, but rather because—in so far as they involve indecent images of children—they would be redundant. In other words, when they do not involve such images, the offences that we have included are the relevant offences so the higher sentence should be available anyway.
	Our amendments will also make high sentences available in relation to specified offences in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and I should clarify that the Scottish Executive have welcomed those provisions. I want to conclude this section of my speech by repeating my thanks to the hon. Member for Mole Valley. I know that his efforts have been appreciated by members of the law enforcement community, particularly the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. I hope that he will feel that there is no need to press his new clause and that he and all hon. Members will be able to support new clause 22 and amendment 119.

James Brokenshire: The Minister will be aware that this is an issue that we highlighted in the Public Bill Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) will be pleased to hear that the Government have accepted the concept in tabling these amendments. Can the Minister give any explanation or guidance as to how the provisions will be rolled out? Is it intended that CEOP will take this forward, or will further broader guidance be given to police forces on the application of this new offence? Obviously, we hope that it will be effective in dealing with these pernicious paedophiles, who seek to hide away appalling images in computers and other systems in an encrypted form.

Alan Campbell: Of course, CEOP plays a vital part in tackling this hideous crime. It is important that police officers in forces across the country are aware of this criminality and are able to spot it and know what to do with it. We will bring forward guidance in due course.
	I want to move now to the issue of "controlled for gain", which took a great deal of time to debate in Committee. The debate in Committee was positive and constructive, even though we did not always agree. Amendments 142 and 143 would remove clause 13 and clause 14 respectively and replace those clauses with a new offence that seeks to address some of the concerns that have been raised about those clauses as the Bill has progressed. First, they seek to clarify the scope of the offence. In Committee, there were concerns that that the phrase "controlled for gain" was too wide and not sufficiently clear. We have tabled our own amendments in response to those concerns.
	We believe that our amendments are preferable to the approach taken by new clauses 25 and 26 and a number of amendments that have been tabled that relate to the definition of "controlled for gain" or the scope of this offence. First, we have used the terms "force", "threats" or "deception" as we consider them to be more precise than the word "coercion". Secondly, although there appears to be consensus that the offence should cover those who pay for sex with someone who has been trafficked, we do not feel that it would be appropriate to adopt the approach followed by using the term "trafficked" in the legislation. For that reason, we also have reservations about amendment 211.
	Using the term "trafficked" would mean that if someone had been trafficked and escaped from their traffickers, but still chose to work as a prostitute, it would still be an offence to have sex with that person if the payer knew or ought to know about the prostitute's past. Instead, our amendment focuses on the conduct that is likely to have induced or encouraged the person to provide the sexual services to the payer.

Keith Vaz: Has the Minister seen the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on human trafficking, which was published last Thursday, and the concern that we expressed about the enforceability of what he is talking about? The evidence that the police gave us was that it would be very difficult to enforce. I welcome the shift in position. The Government have taken an important step forward in the few months since the publication of the Bill. Has the Minister been able to go back to the police to ask them whether this new proposal will be workable?

Alan Campbell: I welcome the report by the Select Committee and the interest that it has taken in such matters. Of course, we speak to the police regularly about a host of things, and not least the enforceability of the legislation. Let me say by word of caution that we have brought forward a new definition that we believe is more workable. However, I think that this is still a work in progress. I will be listening carefully to the arguments that are made today from people with all sorts of different points of view on the matter. It is crucial that we get this definition right. Of course we want the definition to be right as the Bill leaves this place and goes to another place, but I am sure that this point will be the subject of great discussion at a later stage.

Denis MacShane: I would modestly suggest that a definition that can satisfy everybody is all but impossible to achieve. There is a definition that covers anybody who employs a cleaning lady, for example, who might be an illegal immigrant. It is no defence to say, "I didn't know that she was an illegal immigrant." It is a crime under our law, decided by this House, to employ someone who is an illegal immigrant. Therefore, if someone has sex with someone who has been trafficked, it should be no defence to say, "I did not know that she was trafficked."  [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) says, "Ridiculous", but this is a profoundly important point. We have to send a signal out to the traffickers that if they bring girls into Britain and men pay for sex with them, buying that sex is a crime. Until we cut off some of the demand with tough measures we will never deal with the supply.

Alan Campbell: My right hon. Friend goes to the crux of the debate. I understand that there are different views, not only about the workability of this measure but about whether it was a good idea to embark on it in the first place. However, my contention in Committee, which still holds, was that this is a fundamentally important piece of legislation. We need to focus on the Government's intention when we set out. The intention has not changed, but we have learned lessons on how best we can define the way in which we can take this forward. As I say, the debate continues.

Evan Harris: First, may I take this opportunity to welcome the fact that the Government have thought further about restricting the definition of "controlled to gain" to the language used in their amendment? It is probably equivalent to the way in which provisions are made in new clause 25, of which I hope to speak in favour if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We can recognise that that definition is work in progress, but the key issue concerns the strict liability and the fact that that is associated with a trivial penalty, even for someone who knowingly has sex with someone whom they know to have been coerced. That is what divides us still at the moment, and therefore that is what I think most of this debate will be about.

Alan Campbell: I intend to cover that very point. It is important that we have a workable definition that does the job we ask it to do, but it is also important that we have a proportionate response. I shall return not just to strict liability but to the penalties that flow from such offences.
	We expect our proposed definition to cover most cases when a prostitute is still under the control of traffickers. We also expect it to cover most of the cases intended to be captured by the fourth scenario mentioned in new clause 25, whereby someone is directed or instructed to provide sexual services but the person does not consent to that direction, provided that they were not simply free to ignore it. In such cases, we imagine that such directions or instructions would be backed up by force or threats.
	Our new clause will deal with the case of a prostitute who agrees to work as a prostitute because their pimp would otherwise refuse to supply them with controlled drugs. However, unlike new clause 25, it would not cover a person who decides to work as a prostitute and chooses to use the money to pay for controlled drugs. Although we accept that there are clearly desperate circumstances in which people provide sexual services to gain drugs or money for drugs, we believe that element of the proposed new clause is drafted too widely.
	New clauses 25 and 26 would capture anyone who uses the sexual services of a prostitute who, under the definition, was trafficked, coerced or otherwise considered exploited, rather than just someone who pays for sexual services. There would be a danger that the offence would also criminalise consenting sexual relationships, such as those between the prostitute and their partner or spouse. It is payment to those who are controlling the prostitutes that fuels demand for them, so that act is the focus for our offence.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. It is useful for the House to discuss these points as he makes his critique, because we may never come back to them.
	Is the Minister saying that the reference in new clause 25 to a person who
	"uses...the sexual services of a prostitute"
	might be felt by the police and the courts to apply to the husband or wife of a prostitute? Is he seriously saying that that is a flaw in the provision?

Alan Campbell: We are saying that we have to be careful about the language we use. The hon. Gentleman may be dismissive of the fact, but someone who uses a woman who is a prostitute is different from someone who exploits them for gain. There is a clear distinction and as we are talking about moving to a better definition it is important that we get the language absolutely right, or as close as we can.
	New clauses 25 and 26 seek to address the other significant issue that has been discussed in relation to the offence—strict liability. We cannot accept the other amendments that have been tabled on the issue and we have concerns about that aspect of the new clauses. We still believe that strict liability is the most effective way of ensuring that those who pay for sex are forced to consider the circumstances of the prostitute who will be providing the sexual services, and that it protects those who have not chosen to be involved in prostitution.
	My next point about the new clauses goes to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's point about penalty. The proposals would increase the maximum penalty for the offence under clauses 13 and 14, which is currently a fine of £1,000, to 14 years' imprisonment. Amendment 240 would have the same effect. We intend to continue to make the offence one of strict liability. In our view, it remains appropriate to maintain the maximum penalty as a fine. That is consistent with similar offences aimed at tackling the demand for prostitution, such as kerb crawling. If someone has sex with a person and they do not reasonably believe that the person consents, they should be prosecuted for something else—namely, rape.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is shaking his head. I realise that the Members who tabled the new clauses and amendments will not be satisfied by all the aspects of our response, but I hope that our amendments to the scope of the offence will be of some reassurance and persuade them not to press the new clauses.

Lynne Jones: I am not sure that I have adequately understood what my hon. Friend said about the penalty. If someone knowingly or recklessly pays for sex with a person they know is subject to force, deception or threats, surely that is rape and a £1,000 fine is completely inadequate.

Alan Campbell: The crux of the matter is whether there is evidence. The point I made is that if there is evidence of rape, the person should be prosecuted for rape and the penalties would be considerably higher. We seek to introduce for the first time an offence, and a penalty, to deal with people who have until now been able to get away scot-free. It would cover situations when traffickers have been held responsible for the women who were victims. We know what to do with the victims, but the men were able to walk away. We are saying—indeed, I am strongly saying—that if there is evidence that can be used to prosecute another offence that tackles the problem, that is what should be done. We are talking about reducing demand by sending out a strong message, based on strict liability. The penalty that goes with that strict liability offence is compatible with other measures that we want to introduce, and associated action we could take, to press down on demand—whether that is kerb crawling or other areas. We are saying to men, "If you pay for sex with a woman, whether or not you know she has been trafficked, you will be held responsible and the penalty will be commensurate with that offence". However, I agree with my hon. Friend that if something else can be brought to bear in such circumstances, the authorities should use that offence.

Evan Harris: It is difficult to get a conviction for rape, even in the starkest circumstances outside prostitution. I do not think that there have been any convictions of rape in prostitution and I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether he knows of any rape prosecutions against the clients of prostitutes. Does he still agree with Home Office evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that there is no prospect of obtaining a rape conviction in the context of paid sex with a prostitute? If that is the case, that option is not an answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), so her proposal offers the better way forward.

Alan Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of making our case for us. The difficulty in holding people to account has led us to introduce the strict liability clause and although he does not accept it, the penalty we propose is proportionate because it corresponds with other actions that can be taken to suppress demand. He asks me for examples of prosecutions for rape. My understanding is that the figures would not be broken down in that way; if that is not true, I shall set out the alternative. We could not say categorically whether people had been prosecuted for rape in such circumstances, but we must not lose sight of the reality that the men we are talking about have not been held to account. Whether the evidence—in the view of some people—would be akin to rape or whether it was actually evidence of rape, men have walked away from their responsibilities. The offence is one of the measures that we are putting in place to hold them to account and it is an important step forward.
	I turn to the amendments tabled by the Home Secretary and a number of Members, which deal with control for gain in relation to clause 13. Amendments 211 and 214 would narrow the offence under clause 13 by removing the term "controlled for gain" and substituting the word "coerced". Members tabled similar amendments in Committee and the matter was discussed at length. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, which I have already discussed, would clarify the scope of the offence to ensure that it could not be used to prosecute men paying for sex with prostitutes who have freely consented to their involvement in prostitution, who work in a safe environment and who are directed, in a limited way, by a madam.
	Our amendments would remove the term "controlled for gain" in light of concern about what would be covered by the word "control". We do not want to interfere with the way in which "controlled for gain" has been interpreted by the courts in relation to other offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 by attempting further to define the term in the Bill. We have instead replaced the word "control" in the offence with a requirement that the prostitute involved must have been subject to force, threats or deception. We believe that that is consistent with the aims of a number of amendments tabled in Committee and on Report. I note in particular that, by using the term "force, deception or threats", our amendments appear to have a similar effect to amendment 211, tabled by the hon. Member for Totnes.
	Government amendments 46 to 53 would amend clause 13 to make it an offence to pay for sex with someone who has been subject to force, deception or threats from a third party of a kind likely to encourage the provision of sexual services for which payment has been made or promised. The third party must have acted for or be in expectation of gain for himself or another person. We believe that the term "force, deception or threats" covers the conduct that we have always been clear that we wish to capture—for example, paying for sex with someone who has been trafficked and forced to work as a prostitute—while clearly excluding circumstances in which someone chooses to work as prostitute entirely of their own free will. We have used those terms because we believe that they best respond to the concerns raised in Committee, while ensuring that we do not compromise the policy objective of tackling the demand for prostitutes who are being exploited.
	On the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), we do not feel that the word "coercion" would add greater clarity to the offence, as it is still not clear what threats or other types of pressure it might cover. We have therefore chosen language that we consider to be more precise.

Denis MacShane: The Minister's proposed definition, which severely waters down the Bill's original intention, will not cover any of the poor women who were killed in Ipswich. They were not forced, deceived or threatened. They were killed, because they were prostitutes, by a man who would face absolutely no pressure from any police authority to stop him buying sex and then taking the women away to kill them. I urge the Government to look very seriously—if not here, certainly in another place—at the amendments that would introduce the definition in relation to forced marriages, because the Minister's definition would not have protected any of the Ipswich victims.

Alan Campbell: As I have tried to point out throughout my remarks, we believe that this debate will continue—it will do so this evening, and it will certainly do so in another place—but I reassure my right hon. Friend that I am not deaf to the remarks that I hope will be made from several quarters of the House tonight. We believe that we have alighted in the right place; but as the debate is continuing, we will certainly be open to it. I want to make it absolutely clear that our intention is not to water down severely the proposals.

John Gummer: I very much hope that the Minister will listen carefully, as I am the Member of Parliament in whose constituency two of those sad girls were found. I do not think that I can overstate the feeling locally that the proposals do not go far enough; nor can I overstate the fact that, when people are coerced by their providers of drugs, so that they are provided with drugs on terms in which prostitution is the only route that they feel that they can go down, to exclude the protection that they ought to have under the Bill is something that we feel very strongly about, and I hope that the Minister will listen to those who press him.

Alan Campbell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, because they go to the nub of why this is such an important part of the debate on an important part of the Bill. I have listened carefully to what he has said, and we must avoid in any way letting down his constituents or, of course, the individuals whom we are talking about.

Lynne Jones: The Safety First coalition, which developed following the Ipswich murders, is very much against many of the measures in the Bill, simply because it believes that they will make women more vulnerable to attack. That is the strong view of other interested organisations, such as Royal College of Nursing, and it has certainly been expressed by the Police Federation.

Alan Campbell: That illustrates the problem that I have in trying to get the Bill into the right form to satisfy as many Members as I can, if not all of them, while remaining true to the intention that we set out in the Bill. Very strong views have been expressed from the first day that the Bill was mooted, and I am sure that those views will continue to be expressed. Even when the Bill becomes an Act, a strong debate will continue, because, of course, there are strong and different views about prostitution per se. We have tried, and we are still trying, to ensure that the Bill addresses a particularly horrific set of circumstances, whatever one's view of prostitution. I hope to satisfy as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible.
	Of course, to talk about force, threats or deception might suggest a kind of static process, but we expect that the offence would still be active when the sexual services were provided. If, however, someone was forced into prostitution by a pimp but later chose to continue to work as a prostitute on her own, it would not be an offence to pay for sex with her during that later period. We have also used the term "likely to induce or encourage" because we do not believe that it will be necessary to show the actual affects of the force or threats on the prostitute, as that would be more likely to give rise to the need for the prostitute to give evidence to show the particular affect of the force or threats on her.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend will know that I have tabled amendments designed to address that problem, which relates to the point about enforceability made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I hope that my right hon. Friend will be reassured by a meeting that I had just a few days ago with Tim Brain, the lead for the Association of Chief Police Officers on prostitution and sex crimes, who feels, having studied it more carefully, that the offence is enforceable, even in its initial wording. However, I have tabled my amendments as a result of speaking to lawyers who work in the magistrates courts and who believe that the phrase
	"of a kind likely to induce or encourage"
	will provide another means to argue about whether an offence has taken place. We want a strict liability offence to operate in magistrates courts, but the complicating factor created by that phrase will make such offences harder to prosecute successfully.

Alan Campbell: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a matter for your discretion, but I hope that my hon. Friend catches your eye, because I want to listen carefully to her remarks, as I do to those of other Members. She has a great deal to say about the psychological pressure that women are put under in such circumstances and about the concern that our current definition will not address that, but let me make it clear—this goes back to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak—that we do not want to exclude any vulnerable woman in prostitution from the protection afforded by the offence. So we will be interested to hear views on this important matter if my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who want to express them are called to speak. I hope that my explanation has at least highlighted the difficulty of defining what we are trying to combat. I also hope that a constructive process continues, building on the work done in Committee. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their views.
	I turn now to strict liability. Amendments 235, 236, 237, 238, 239 and 240 replicate amendments that were tabled in Committee and would remove the strict liability aspect of the offence. I am grateful for the dialogue that we have had, for the prospect of further amendments that will allow the debate to continue and to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its report on the Bill. We particularly note the Joint Committee's comments in relation to the offence's compatibility with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. However, we do not accept the Committee's conclusions. We are satisfied that the new offence complies with both the European convention and principles of common law. We do not accept that article 8, which is about the protection of person's private and family life, includes a right to pay for sex. In any event, we consider that any interference with a person's private life would be in accordance with the law and can be justified as necessary for the protection of health, morals and the rights and freedoms of others.
	The JCHR has suggested that the offence is not sufficiently certain; we simply disagree. We believe that the clause is clear. A person will know that if they pay for sex with someone who is found to have been controlled for gain, they commit an offence. If someone who intends to pay for sex has any doubt as to whether the prostitute is being controlled for gain, they can choose not to pay for sex with that person. The amendments that we have tabled to clarify the scope of the offence will make clearer the circumstances in which it will be illegal to pay for sex with a particular person, and that should help people to regulate their behaviour accordingly.
	I have noted the points raised in Committee by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and by a number of hon. Members, and I hope to be able to address all their concerns explicitly. None the less, we still believe that strict liability is the most effective way of ensuring that those who pay for sex are forced to consider the circumstances of the prostitute providing the sexual services, and of protecting those who have not chosen to be involved in prostitution. It is vital, and right, that we do not ignore the desperate and exploitative circumstances that affect some of those involved in prostitution. It will not be a defence to say, "I didn't know that this person was controlled for gain." That is the key aim of the offence—to ensure that sex buyers are held responsible for their conduct, and to ensure that we deal with those who fuel demand for prostitution. Strict liability is fundamental to ensuring that.

Evan Harris: To clarify, when the Minister says that he wants strict liability in order to force men, if we can generalise, to consider the consequences of their actions, is he not saying that they should make inquiries as to whether the person is controlled for gain, or whatever the definition is? Yet under a system of strict liability, if men did make such inquiries, as we want them to, but were misled, or got it wrong, they would still be penalised, although they had made every effort to ensure that the person was not controlled for gain. That does not encourage them to make those inquiries, because whether they do or not, if they are misled, they will be caught by the offence. Does the Minister recognise that the measure will therefore not have the impact that he hopes it will? He certainly has not produced evidence that it would have such an impact.

Alan Campbell: I think that we have to take one step back from those circumstances. We heard in Committee, and in the evidence sessions, about men who had come forward to say that they believed that women had been trafficked, or were being controlled for gain. They had alerted the women about where they might seek support in order to exit from prostitution, but I think that we have to take one step back from that and say to men: "If you get involved in these situations, it is no good saying that you didn't know." One might say: "How do you not know something that you do not know?" but that is a risk that they take. The bottom line is that if a person visits a prostitute, and there is any suggestion or hint that the prostitute was trafficked or is controlled for gain, or if the question even is in their mind, the person should not go ahead. That is a choice that they can make.
	To add to that, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will know, because he was on the Committee, there are circumstances in which men point women in the direction of support, but in every single example that the POPPY project cited, the men who pointed them in the direction of help and support had sex with them first. We are not talking about a simplistic, black-and-white situation; we are talking about a complex set of circumstances. The easiest and clearest way to put it is this: "If you don't want to get caught up in this offence, and there is any doubt in your mind, whether there is any evidence or not, just don't do it."
	I want to turn to another issue that rightly took up the Committee's time: lap dancing. In particular, I want to speak about amendments 194, 198, 199 and Government amendments 54 to 59. Lap-dancing clubs have grown in number in recent years, and have become an issue of concern for many local communities, who do not feel that existing legislation is adequate to address the impact of such venues on a local area. We have brought forward measures in the Bill to reclassify places that provide lap dancing and other similar entertainment as sex establishments under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. That will give local authorities greater powers to control the number and location of lap-dancing clubs.

Philip Davies: Is it the intention of the Government, under the Bill, to close down lap-dancing clubs that were opened, in good faith, under previous legislation?

Alan Campbell: The purpose is to give communities the opportunity to have their say. In some cases they accept lap-dancing clubs, but in many cases they oppose them. The measure is about empowering communities that do not feel that they are, or have been, part of the process to date. There is a concern that lap-dancing clubs have grown in number, and that they could continue to grow in number unless communities are able to have a stronger say. Under the changes that we propose, if a lap-dancing club is a well-established and well-run establishment, there is no reason why it would not continue in business. The measures address the deficit that there was in the past, with regard to what local communities were able to say about lap-dancing clubs, particularly new ones, in their area.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification, but do his proposals introduce any kind of grandfather rights for lap-dancing clubs that were opened, in good faith, under previous Government legislation?

Alan Campbell: We are currently working on that. The other debate on grandfather rights that I remember was on the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003. The reality is that lap-dancing clubs will, like other establishments, need to be licensed. If local authorities adopt the legislation, such clubs will, at some point, need to be licensed. We are not saying that the legislation will do away with lap-dancing clubs; that was never the intention, and it is not the intention now.

Lynne Featherstone: Does the Minister realise that there has been a rash of applications for lap-dancing licences, just prior to the legislation coming into force? If there were to be grandfather rights, would there be a distinction between those establishments that have been opportunistic and are suddenly getting in on the act, and others?

Alan Campbell: If establishments have rushed to apply for a licence before the legislation comes into force, thinking that they will thereby get some advantage in the long run when their local authority adopts the legislation, that view is misplaced. It would be short-sighted of them to do so. The reality is that they will be subject to the legislation, as will new lap-dancing clubs.
	We understand that there are concerns about aspects of clause 25, including the decision to remove venues that provide infrequent entertainment of the type that we are discussing from the definition of a sex encounter venue. The purpose of the provision is to recognise that not all premises that provide relevant entertainment should be classed as sex encounter venues. An example is a pub that hosts a birthday party for which a strippergram has been booked; we do not believe that such premises should be regulated in the same manner as a lap-dancing club that offers adult entertainment nightly. We accept that not everyone agrees with that distinction, but we believe that the legislation needs to be both targeted and proportionate. In practice, under the provisions, any premises offering relevant entertainment nightly, weekly or even monthly will be required to obtain a licence. Only relatively infrequent or one-off performances of "relevant entertainment" will be permitted without a sex establishment licence; such entertainment will continue to be regulated under the Licensing Act 2003.
	In Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho), and for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods), who have done so much to bring the issue to public attention, spoke plainly about their concerns that the provision would create a loophole that would be exploited by lap-dancing operators who wished to avoid tighter regulation. It is clear from amendment 194, which is in the name of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), that those concerns remain. We take those concerns very seriously. It is not our intention to create opportunities for lap-dancing operators to avoid the impact of the reforms, but at this stage, the Government are not minded to remove paragraph 2A(3)(b) of schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which will be inserted by clause 25. Instead, we propose safeguards against potential abuse of the provision.
	Government amendments 55 to 59 introduce a limited order-making power that will allow the Secretary of State or, in Wales, Welsh Ministers to tighten the exemption or remove it altogether if there is clear evidence that, following implementation, it is being exploited in a way that is obviously against the spirit of the reforms and the wishes of local people. That will allow us to monitor the situation further, and to respond to concerns quickly by limiting exemption powers, or removing the exemption entirely.
	I am aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge and for City of Durham have raised specific concerns that temporary event notices will enable lap dancing to be provided on a regular basis by a number of licensed establishments working in partnership to facilitate that. We do not believe there is compelling evidence that the problem is likely to occur, because that opportunity already exists, but we take these concerns seriously.
	Since the Committee stage, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has published its report on the Licensing Act 2003, which considered a number of issues in relation to temporary event notices and made specific recommendations, including giving local councillors, as representatives of their local community, the ability to object to such notices. Before formally responding to the Select Committee, we will consider more fully all these recommendations and the impact that they will have on other activities covered by temporary event notices.
	I know that hon. Members would like to see the exemption removed. I hope that the order-making power and the comments that I have made in relation to TENs will give them some reassurance and that they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
	Government amendment 54 will clarify the conditions that will allow venues to provide infrequent performances without requiring a sex establishment licence. The amendment makes it clear that in order to provide relevant entertainment without a sex establishment licence, three conditions must be fulfilled: no more than 11 events in any 12-month period, no event lasting longer than 24 hours, and at least one calendar month between events.
	Amendments 198 and 199 would make schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, and by extension provisions introduced by clause 25, mandatory for all local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham tabled a similar amendment in Committee and I know that these concerns remain. Unless provisions are mandatory, my hon. Friends argue, local people will not be guaranteed a greater say over the regulation of lap-dancing clubs in their area.
	Schedule 3 of the Act, which also deals with the licensing of other sex establishments, such as sex shops and sex cinemas, is currently optional for local authorities. It recognises that while the presence of sex establishments can raise particular concerns for many local communities, the issues are not necessarily universal. Many local authorities do not have lap-dancing clubs in their area.
	We cannot be exact regarding numbers, but we estimate that under half of all local authorities have lap-dancing clubs or similar venues in their areas, so the Government do not believe it right to impose the legislation irrespective of need, especially in areas where there are no lap-dancing clubs, and therefore no means of recovering any cost, however small, of implementing the regime.

David Lepper: Does not my hon. Friend think that the system as he has just outlined it could create anomalies? In neighbouring local authority areas, particularly within a conurbation, there could be one regime in place on one side of a borough border, and another on the other side. That is no way to help regulate lap-dancing clubs.

Alan Campbell: The basis upon which we intend to introduce the legislation will give local people and local communities a greater say. I cannot stress enough the importance of localism in this context. The situation that my hon. Friend described pertains to the Licensing Act as well. A different set of circumstances pertain in the Bigg Market of Newcastle from those that pertain in the Esplanade of Whitley bay, yet local authorities are able to manage the situation as they believe best suits their local communities.

John Gummer: It is likely that the Suffolk Coastal district council would not have need for any of these applications, but I commend the Government for their way of looking at these things. I wish they would extend that to many other topics, but in this case I hope the Minister will rebuff those who want to be more universal. His position would be accepted and welcomed.

Alan Campbell: I cannot give an undertaking that this will be the norm for Government policy, but we believe that it is right on this occasion. Local authorities should have the flexibility to decide whether the provisions are necessary, based on local circumstances.

Lynda Waltho: I welcome much of what my hon. Friend has said, but my difficulty is that Dudley has been particularly timid in using the current licensing law. For instance, when a club asks for a later licence, it is granted, then another and another, because the council is frightened to death of being taken to court. We have had so much trouble with lap dancing, particularly in Stourbridge, and my worry is that Dudley will choose not to take up the powers and my constituents will be in the same position as they are now, with no voice.

Alan Campbell: My hon. Friend and I have discussed this at great length. We do not share the same views, but we have the same concerns. When we went out to consultation, no shortage of local authorities clearly indicated that, were the powers available, they would take them up. Ultimately, my hon. Friend's constituents decide the fate of the local authority. A local authority or lap dancing club that thought it could set itself against a local community would be short-sighted. It is important that local people hold local authorities to account. If lap-dancing clubs are a big issue in their area, the excuses that my hon. Friend attributes to her local authority would not hold water with residents.
	I shall move on to other important issues and try to deal with them properly and quickly, as I am taking up a great deal of time. On the decriminalisation of under-18 prostitution, new clause 4 seeks to amend the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution so that those under the age of 18 cannot commit the offence. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon tabled similar amendments in Committee. I want to be clear that the Government have a great deal of sympathy with the issue. There is a fine line between the positions held.
	We recognise that children who have become involved in prostitution are the victims of a sexual offence and should be offered appropriate support. That is in our advice, "Safeguarding children involved in prostitution", which was issued in 2000 and which we will update along similar lines this summer. Since the publication of that guidance, the numbers of those under 18 cautioned or prosecuted for this offence have been very low. It is clear, therefore, that in practice, the offence is used extremely rarely in relation to under-18s, and that in most cases children are treated as victims.
	The approach of treating children abused through prostitution as victims will rightly continue to be that approach that agencies take, but on balance—and it is a fine balance—we believe there are still reasons for retaining the current position on statute. First, decriminalising under-18s would risk sending out a message that we do not think it is acceptable for adults to be involved in street prostitution, but that somehow it is acceptable for a child or young person to loiter or solicit for the purposes of prostitution. If one child is deterred from getting involved in prostitution because they would be at risk of breaking the law, that would justify our position.
	Secondly, abolishing the offence could encourage pimps to target children, as they would know that the police could not arrest child prostitutes if they were found loitering or soliciting. Thirdly, we are concerned at the risk that such a move would encourage the trafficking of women into street prostitution, having been briefed to lie about their age. This may be a particular risk as it may be difficult to establish the age of women trafficked form abroad. There may be exceptional cases where support from agencies has been made available but the child refuses to accept that support. At that point, criminal justice agencies may be important to push the child towards that support. Our approach is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service. On that basis we cannot accept the amendments.
	With reference to persistent prostitution and orders requiring attendance at meetings, amendment 7 seeks to remove clause 16 from the Bill and prevent the Government from introducing orders requiring attendance at meetings for someone convicted of loitering and soliciting contrary to section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959. Following the publication in 2004 of a consultation paper, "Paying the Price", the Government published in 2006 a co-ordinated prostitution strategy that recognised the concern in communities not only about the nuisance that street prostitution can cause, but that there must be a way for prostitutes to exit prostitution should they wish to do so. Respondents strongly indicated that women who are involved in street prostitution have multiple and complex needs, and that our approach must recognise that complexity.
	It is important that the offence of loitering and soliciting for the purpose of prostitution is maintained and used where appropriate, and we have also identified the need for some important reforms to ensure that the offence is used consistently. However, we want to help people to begin exiting prostitution—something that is difficult to achieve with a fine, which is the current maximum penalty. We intend to remove "common" from the offence of loitering and soliciting for the purpose of prostitution.

Lynne Jones: Is not the largest barrier to sex workers leaving the industry the stigma that is associated with prostitution? In what way will the legislation going through the House today help to remove that stigma?

Alan Campbell: I am not sure that there will never be a stigma associated with prostitution in some people's eyes, because it raises very strong feelings. However, we are looking for a series of practical measures to bear down on the demand for prostitutes when they have been controlled for gain and, in particular, when they may have been trafficked. We are offering a way out for prostitutes who wish to exit the sex industry, and, as part of that process, we believe that orders are very important.
	Amendment 6 would narrow the definition of "persistence", so that the offence of loitering and soliciting could be used to protect those found loitering and soliciting only on two occasions in one week. We believe that that would be unenforceable in terms of police resources, so we cannot accept the amendment. If someone is found loitering and soliciting within a three-month period, which is a relatively short space of time, the police should have the power to take action against them. They may receive a caution or continue to receive a fine, but they may also be able to access the help that they need. That is why the new clause would introduce a rehabilitative penalty as an alternative to a fine, allowing someone convicted of loitering and soliciting to address why they were involved in prostitution, and helping them to exit street prostitution.
	The orders should be tailored to individual requirements, and a series of meetings will take place as a gateway to their accessing the help that they need. If they breach the order, which will be a part of the process that the court puts in place, they should be held accountable for it. There is a misconception that the order would criminalise further those involved in street prostitution and that, as a result of making such persons subject to an order, they would face tougher sanctions, including imprisonment, for having breached it. That is not the case. If someone breaches an order, they will be brought back before the court, but its option at that stage will be the same as its option on conviction. The court will be able to impose a fine or a new order. In deciding what sentence to impose, the court will take into account the extent to which the offender complied with the previous order. A breach will not mean further criminalisation or the imposition of tougher sanctions.
	One other issue that was raised in Committee is that the provisions allow an order to be imposed without the consent of offenders. Ideally, we want people to choose to engage with support services in order to leave prostitution, but persistent involvement makes some element of compulsion necessary. The strategy encourages a diversion from the criminal justice system towards support services and, ultimately, away from prostitution. If people relapse, they should get help, but they should be pushed towards accessing that help.
	The orders are an important part of the development of the Government's prostitution strategy. I have outlined the reasoning behind its introduction and some of the major concerns that were raised Committee. I hope that hon. Members will reflect on my remarks and on what the Government intend to do, and remember that we are still in listening mode.

John McDonnell: In the Government's response to the legislative scrutiny Committee, there is a statement about the process that my hon. Friend the Minister has set out. It says that a person will end up in police detention only as a last resort, and that the period of detention will be as short as possible. Is there any estimate of the numbers that will be detained? What is the shortest estimated time scale for detention itself?

Alan Campbell: I cannot give my hon. Friend any estimates off the top of my head, but I shall find out that information for him. He will know that when similar provisions were introduced in other legislation, a time scale of 72 hours was mentioned, but it was felt to be too long. We sought to introduce the phrase "as soon as practicable" to make the time scale shorter than 72 hours. In some people's eyes, it opens up the measure to an indefinite extension, but that is not what we propose. Given that a prostitute may be picked up on a Friday, with little prospect of going before a court until the following Monday, we believe that the measure is an appropriate response.

John McDonnell: rose—

Alan Campbell: I had finished, but I shall give my hon. Friend one last chance.

John McDonnell: It would be really helpful if we could get as much information as possible on those estimates, and if we could get on the record what the Government mean by "as soon as practicable", because, on some interpretations, it might elongate to 72 hours. Before the Minister finishes, I should also welcome any comments on new clause 37 and the definition of a brothel.

Alan Campbell: I undertake to find out that information, and I am sure that, if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will return to the other issue that he mentioned.

Evan Harris: The Minister's speech shows two things: first, that we had good debates in Committee, because three Ministers were willing to take interventions and have a debate, and Government amendment 47 now demonstrates that willingness at least to listen and to consider the important issues; and, secondly, the fact that the Minister spoke for almost an hour shows that before us we have an enormous group of amendments, covering a huge number of issues. I therefore hope that we will have the opportunity to decide as many of those issues as possible at the end of the debate.
	I shall restrict my remarks to two new clauses that have been tabled in my name and those of Back Benchers from all parts of the House. New clause 4 relates to the decriminalisation of prostitutes under the age of 18 and the decriminalisation of the victim. Given the Government's acceptance of the need to narrow the definition of "controlled for gain" in the strict liability offence, new clause 25 deals mainly with the question of whether we should have strict liability, and with the consequent low penalties for people—men—who have sex with prostitutes whom they know to have been, or are reckless as to whether they have been, trafficked or coerced into sex.
	On new clause 4, the Minister just said that he thought that there was a fine line between our two positions, but that is difficult to accept, because, regardless of whether the line is fine, our distinction is fundamental. If one believes, as I and those organisations that represent children, their welfare and their best interests do, that criminalisation of under 18-year-old prostitutes on the street puts them at greater risk of exploitation and further from help, we have a fundamental difference. There is clear evidence for the position that I and other hon. Members who tabled the new clause hold—that criminalisation is detrimental to the welfare of children and fundamentally against their rights. Although the Minister tried to make the best fist of his case for continued criminalisation, he provided no evidence to support his contention.
	We need to be very clear that children's charities and human rights organisations, including the United Nations committee on the welfare of children, have for a long time sought the decriminalisation of under-18s in prostitution. Back Benchers are divided on strict liability; the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for example, differs from me and the other Members supporting the amendment on the strict liability provision. However, there is a consensus, including the hon. Lady, that decriminalisation of prostitutes under 18 is critical.
	The Standing Committee for Youth Justice represents a number of organisations, including Barnardo's, the Children's Society, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, the Howard League for Penal Reform, JUSTICE, Nacro, the National Children's Bureau, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others, and they generally support decriminalisation. Why is it harmful to maintain the power to prosecute in such cases? According to the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, although the levels of prosecution for child prostitution are very low, young people on the street are not aware of that. That is damaging. What they know, or what they will be told— [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The level of conversation among Members who have just come into the Chamber is unfair on those who have been here throughout this debate.

Evan Harris: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that they have not come to hear this debate or me, but I hope to make progress on these important matters in nine minutes.
	What young people on the street know, or will be told, is that prostitution continues to be illegal and that they are therefore at risk of prosecution. That alone will make them sceptical about seeking help from the authorities.

Mary Creagh: During a Joint Committee on Human Rights visit, the hon. Gentleman and I spent an evening that I will always remember on the Via Cristoforo Colombo in Rome; we were looking at the trafficked women there. If women have been trafficked into a country, does he agree that they are even less likely to understand the laws of the land and will be even more fearful of entering into any contact with authority?

Evan Harris: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We are talking about extremely vulnerable people, regardless of whether they have been trafficked; the idea that they could be arrested rather than assisted by a police officer will be the driving force. The Standing Committee for Youth Justice also points out that research suggests that continuing to criminalise these young people in this way actively assists the controlling influence of those who exploit them.
	Obviously, pimps can exercise control over the children whom they pimp by saying, "If you cross me, I will report you to the police because what you do is criminal." The young people are not in a position to know the Minister's figures, which show that only one or two people have been prosecuted for such an offence in any given year; they are in a position to hear from the pimp that they are at risk of prosecution and had better toe the line.
	The literature recognises that point in respect of domestic child abuse. Such threats, even when not founded on statute, hold huge sway with vulnerable young people and children, yet the Government continue to ignore the research base. They make their own pronouncements without a shred of published evidence, or even the pretence of evidence, to back them.
	The Standing Committee for Youth Justice also tells us that fear of the police can result in young people taking health risks. Young people involved in commercial sexual exploitation are less likely to carry and use condoms. They fear that if they are found with them, that will give away the fact that they are on the game. That is a problem if we want to reduce harm. That is why there is so much pressure from human rights organisations and charities for the law to be changed. We thought that we had won the argument when, during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing acknowledged that children involved in sexual exploitation are victims and that he wished to give
	"a clear message that child sexual exploitation is a grave crime that will not be tolerated, and that the child is always a victim." ——[ Official Report, Criminal Justice and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2007; c. 538.]
	The child is not always the victim if on occasion they can be the criminal. It does not work for the Government to say that messages are sent out. This Minister has claimed that the decriminalisation of child prostitutes would send out a message that it was okay for children, but not adults, to be prostitutes. Again, that cannot be right without the evidence.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I ask all hon. Members who have just come into the Chamber and who have not been part of this debate to keep their conversations at a low level.

Evan Harris: For the Government to rely on the assertion that reversing the criminalisation of children who are victims of exploitation sends out such a message, evidence must be provided, because the evidence base is on the other side. Similarly, a Minister has argued that pimps will seek out child prostitutes because they will not be arrested and therefore be a shelter from the law, but that also has no evidence behind it. However, the issue underpins the importance of concentrating police and criminal justice efforts at the pimps, traffickers and exploiters rather than further criminalising the vulnerable people. Furthermore, I do not believe that children or older women would be forced into street prostitution and encouraged to lie about their ages. Pimps already encourage their prostitutes to lie—that is the nature of pimping. If the new clause is agreed to, we can protect children, and that is critical.
	Many hon. Members are here, and I make a plea to them. When new clause 4 is moved at the end of the debate at 9 pm, as I hope it will be, I ask them to listen to the likes of JUSTICE, the NSPCC, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Children's Rights Alliance for England and to say, "Enough is enough. It is time to do what the Government undertook to do during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008." The Minister for Children, Young People and Families said as she gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that child prostitutes are always victims and never criminals. It is time to support new clause 4 on that basis.
	The case has been made overwhelmingly, even before we consider the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

John McDonnell: Evidence has been collected from children who have been prosecuted and had to live their lives with that hanging over them; that relates to the issue of stigma, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones).

Evan Harris: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, whose contribution to this debate has been important. I am grateful to him and Back Benchers from all parties for their support on new clause 4.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights said:
	"We are therefore unconvinced by the Government's explanation of the continuing need for the criminalisation of children involved in prostitution, which is in direct opposition to the conclusions of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In particular, we are not persuaded by the assertion that the criminal justice system may be needed to enable children to access support. The provision of revised guidance is insufficient to address our central point of concern. We recommend"—
	as I do now—
	"that the Government reconsider its opposition to decriminalising children involved in prostitution and suggest an amendment to the Bill."
	In the minute that I have left, I should like to turn to new clause 25; I imagine that I will have to come back to it after the Speaker's statement. The new clause is one of the key parts of the debate.  [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Yet again, I ask the House to come to order while the hon. Gentleman is on his feet.

Evan Harris: The House is anxious to hear the statement, and I understand that.  [Interruption.] If I do not speak, someone else will, so there is no choice.
	I am talking about an important matter. Hon. Members will have been lobbied about the Government's proposal for a strict liability offence that meant that paying for sex with a prostitute controlled for gain will be a criminal offence whether or not the person was aware, or should have been aware, that the prostitute was controlled for gain. The fundamental problem with that approach is that the penalty for someone who is aware that they are having sex with a trafficked or coerced woman will be a maximum fine of £1,000. The offence that I am talking about is akin to rape. It cannot be right that the Government's provisions fail to capture a person who goes on to have sex with someone, against their will, who they know has been trafficked and coerced. It is clear that that person cannot be prosecuted or convicted for rape. The Minister could provide no examples of where rape prosecution would work in the context of prostitution. New clause 25, which is supported by official Opposition Front Benchers, Liberal Democrats and Back Benchers on both sides of the House, would provide for an offence that would suitably punish people in that respect.
	After the Speaker's statement, I will set out why the Government's approach is wrong and ours is right. This amendment is supported not only by those who work in prostitution but by health service workers such as those in the Royal College of Nursing, who voted by 10 to one during their last conference to oppose deeper criminalisation of the vulnerable people working in prostitution. It is supported by organisations such as Justice and Liberty, which recognise that it is fundamentally against people's human rights to be hit with a strict liability offence that criminalises them, particularly in a private matter.
	 Debate interrupted.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I should like to make a statement, for the second time today.
	This afternoon I convened a meeting of party leaders—both major and minor parties—and members of the House of Commons Commission to make decisions on the operation of parliamentary allowances pending the recommendations of Sir Christopher Kelly's Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Chairman of the Committee on Members' Allowances was also present to advise us.
	The Committee on Standards in Public Life will come forward with long-term reforms to the current allowances system. All parties are now committed to implementing its recommendations as a whole, subject to the formal agreement of this House, provided that these reforms meet the tests of increased transparency and accountability and reduced cost for the taxpayer. We have today agreed a robust set of interim measures which will take effect at once and do not pre-empt any more substantial changes to be put forward by the Kelly committee.
	Second homes: there will be no more claims for such items as furniture, household goods, capital improvements, gardening, cleaning and stamp duty. The following only should be claimable: rent, including ground rent; hotel accommodation; overnight subsistence; mortgage interest; council tax; service charges; utility bills, including gas, water, electricity, oil, telephone calls and line rental; and insurance—buildings and contents.
	Designation of second homes: no changes to be made to designation of second homes in the years 2009-10, with a transparent appeal procedure for exceptional cases.
	Capital gains tax: Members selling any property must be completely open with the tax authorities about whether they have claimed additional costs allowance on that property as a second home and are liable for capital gains tax. Members should make a declaration in respect of any property on which they claim for expenditure that it is not—and will never be—their main residence for capital gains tax purposes. Whether such a declaration has been made will be made public.
	Couples: Members who are married or living together as partners must nominate the same main home, and will be limited to claiming a maximum of one person's accommodation allowance between them.
	Mortgages: all those Members claiming reimbursement must confirm that the mortgage continues, that the payments are for interest only, and the amount claimed is accurate. Mortgage interest claims will be capped at £1,250 per month. In the view of the meeting—and subject to the recommendations of the Kelly committee—this maximum figure should be reduced in the longer term. The same cap will apply to rent and hotel accommodation. Some of these measures I am announcing will require a resolution by the House in the near future; others will be put into effect by administrative action.
	Staffing: we confirmed the enforcement of deposit of staff contracts and the registration of any relatives employed.
	While the Kelly committee recommendations are awaited, there will be no specific changes to other allowances. The Department of Resources is instructed to tighten the administration of all claims and apply a clear test of "reasonableness". If there is any doubt about the eligibility of a claim, it will be refused and there will be no appeal. In future, all authorised payments will be published online at transaction level on a quarterly basis by the Department of Resources.
	All past claims under the former additional costs allowance over the past four years will be examined. This will be carried out by a team with external management; the external manager will be appointed after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General. All necessary resources will be made available. The team will look at claims in relation to the rules which existed at that time, and will take account of any issues which arise from that examination which cause them to question the original judgment.
	The meeting also received a paper from the Prime Minister, which was endorsed by the other party leaders, calling for a fundamental reform of allowances—moving from self-regulation to regulation by an independent body. The Government will consult widely on this proposal. Further to this, the Leader of the House will be making a statement tomorrow, which will allow the House a full opportunity to ask questions, and Members to air their views on the decisions we have made and the proposals for the future.

Harriet Harman: Further to your statement, Mr. Speaker. As you said, the Prime Minister provided a document for today's discussions with you and other party leaders. For the convenience of Members, I will deposit this paper in the Library tonight, and copies will be made available for Members in the Vote Office.

Mr. Speaker: I will now pass the House back to the Deputy Speaker.

Policing and Crime Bill

Proceedings resumed.

Evan Harris: I shall continue with the second half of my contribution, in which I shall specifically support new clause 25. It has been tabled by myself, by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Totnes (Mr. Steen), by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), and by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I understand that it is supported by both Opposition Front-Bench teams.
	My view on clause 13 is that further criminalisation of prostitution will be detrimental. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and I voted against the clause in Committee, but I recognise that my view on that does not have sufficient support in the House, and that the Government have a majority to get some sort of offence on to the statute book to tackle demand. It is only realistic, therefore, for me to work with other hon. Members to find a form of words on which we hope there can be majorities in both Houses. I am grateful to Liberty, Justice, the Criminal Bar Association, the English Collective of Prostitutes and the International Union of Sex Workers, as well as to hon. Members, for their help in drafting the new clause. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) for his willingness to try to identify a way forward that delivers what he wants—a workable law that does something about demand but does not have the drawbacks that he expertly identified in the Public Bill Committee.
	New clause 25 is therefore based on a consensus, and it has three main ingredients. First, it would get rid of the strict liability provisions, for reasons that I shall explain. Secondly, and as a consequence of that, it would enable the punishment to match the offence where there is not strict liability. Thirdly, it would redefine "controlled for gain" in a narrower way. I recognise that in tabling amendment 47 and associated amendments, the Government have also done that, so I do not propose to spend time comparing the construction of that amendment and the new clause. There are probably advantages and disadvantages to both, but they are both in the same general ballpark.
	I have some points to make about the Government amendment, however. First, it still provides that control has to be for gain. We considered that matter with the lawyers who were assisting us, and could not understand why the Government did not want to capture pimps who do what they do for cruelty and for the hell of it, who get a kick out of controlling women and girls in prostitution and perhaps running them for drugs purposes, but do not operate for gain from the sale of sexual services. If the Government are still in listening mode concerning the nature of that part of their provisions, they should consider that.
	Our equivalent provisions have four main parts. First, in proposed new subsection (3), we define a victim of trafficking. We use the language that has found favour with the hon. Member for Slough in other legislation. She is concerned that we ought to return to the definition that is often used in international law, and we have included it as far as we can. Secondly, the new clause mentions "coercion" and is therefore very similar to the Government's provisions. We include in that violence, threats and intimidation.
	We thought that it was important that the third point was clearly captured, so that people controlling prostitutes would know exactly what they were letting themselves in for. We state that the person in control commits an offence if B—the prostitute—has provided sexual services
	"in order to gain access to controlled drugs".
	Finally, recognising that we could not get the Government to agree with us on the matter in the Public Bill Committee, we believed that we needed to discriminate between brothels that are run co-operatively, in which the women at all times accept the control of the madam, and brothels where women are working together but do not freely consent to the direction or instruction of someone who tells them, "Do this with this person, in this room, for this price." That situation would be covered by the new clause, because we reached consensus on a pragmatic way forward that would cover mischief in relation to which demand needs to be tackled on a non-strict liability basis. I hope that the Government will consider that further, as they have indicated they are willing to do in another place.
	I now turn to the important matter of strict liability. I know that other hon. Members will talk about the experience and views of the English Collective of Prostitutes and others, so the best thing that I can do is demonstrate the forensic job that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, did, in a report that was unanimously agreed, on why the strict liability offence is so wrong.
	The first criterion for having a law that potentially engages human rights—as the Government, in their memorandum to the Committee, accepted that this one will—is that it is necessary in a democratic society. That fundamentally requires evidence that the Government's legitimate goal, which will constrain freedoms, will be effective. The Joint Committee reflected on the fact that the Government have still failed to publish the evidence—although they said in their little paper supporting the offence that it existed—that strict liability would be beneficial. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), confirmed that the review of evidence had not been published, but stated that the Government had never made a commitment to publish the evidence, and that it was currently being collated.
	I do not think that that is acceptable, or that most Select Committees would consider it acceptable—certainly not the Joint Committee on Human Rights or the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills, on which I also serve—for the Government to claim that they are introducing evidence-based policy and then fail to produce the evidence on which they seek to rely. Not only did they not produce it, they did not have it published and peer-reviewed before publication. That suggests that the Government do not have evidence upon which they can rely. They are, of course, aware that the weight of academic and health service opinion is that further criminalisation will be harmful. Taking an evidence-based approach alone, the Government are wrong.
	The Government said that we
	"should not read too much into the fact that the evidence has not been published. It does not mean that it contradicts the propositions that the Government are bringing forward." ——[ Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2009; c. 113, Q197.]
	I cannot understand why something that was alleged to exist a year ago has still not been published. The Joint Committee stated:
	"We are disappointed that the Government has failed to provide the evidence which, in its view, demonstrates the necessity for the new strict liability offence. As we have said on a number of previous occasions, legislation should be firmly based on evidence. We consider this to be particularly important when new criminal offences are proposed, to show why the existing criminal law is inadequate to deal with the targeted conduct and how the proposed new offence tackles the behaviour in a proportionate way."
	Evidence is important when we are dealing with the criminal law. That echoes the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that adequate time for debate is important in such cases. The Joint Committee's report continued that
	"it is even more imperative when the proposed new offence is one of strict liability. We recommend that the evidence be published without further delay so that Parliament can be properly informed when debating the need for this new strict liability offence."
	Sadly, we are debating this before the Government's response to that report, and before we have seen the evidence, which is unfortunate.
	The second criterion for such an offence identified by the Joint Committee is that it needs to be prescribed by law. Liberty made clear in its evidence to the Committee a point that it also made in its briefings on the Bill:
	"Strict liability offences should be used very sparingly and should only apply to minor offences where it seems obvious in the circumstances that an offence has been committed. It should not apply when a person is unable to ascertain whether what they are doing is unlawful. Given it is not an offence to pay for sexual services of a person who is not controlled for gain, it would be unfair to impose a strict liability offence on someone who pays for the sexual services of a person who is controlled for gain but whom the offender does not know is controlled."
	I have read that into the record because it is the quickest way to get that point across.
	The European Court of Human Rights has considered the matter, and in one case, Salabiaku  v. France, stated:
	"States may, under certain conditions, penalise a simple or objective fact as such, irrespective of whether it results from criminal intent or from negligence."
	However, proving that an individual did not know that a person was controlled for gain is explicitly ruled out as a defence in the Government's proposal, which goes further than that case. That is why the Joint Committee was right to say that the proposed offence would be a human rights breach as well as bad law, and that we will have to amend our law if a case is brought.
	The Joint Committee concluded that
	"the fact that the offence is one of strict liability will make it difficult for an individual to know how to regulate his conduct given that his knowledge is not an element of the offence. We have concerns about the breadth of the new offence and its potential impact beyond the group that the Government seeks to target. In our view"—
	this is important—
	"the proposed offence has the potential to put women into more exploitative or unsafe situations, may not address the problem which the offence aims to target (namely exploitative prostitution) and may discourage reporting of such prostitution."
	I know that other hon. Members can speak about those issues, based on the experience and views of women involved in prostitution and of those involved in human rights.
	I want to consider the provisions on rape, which, again, the Government have got wrong. I think that the Government accept that it is impossible to get a conviction for rape in the context of prostitution. However, they cannot have it both ways: they cannot say that because rape happens even though there are no prosecutions, we should have a strict liability offence with a low penalty, while also claiming that we can still prosecute for rape in those hard cases. The position is clear: it is impossible to get a conviction for rape in the context of prostitution. I wish it were not so, and that rape conviction rates were higher, but that is a problem in cases of rape outside the context of prostitution, and the Government have provided no evidence of prosecutions, let alone convictions, within that context. That leaves a gap. When someone knowingly has sex with a person who is not freely consenting in the context of prostitution, that should be punished by imprisonment. New clause 25 would rightly provide for that.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Evan Harris: Of course I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who has strong views and has always been willing to have a proper exchange of views on such matters.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman describes the existing situation, whereby men who rape prostituted women too often act with impunity. Does he realise that Cleveland police authority, which has the highest conviction rate for rape—twice the average rate of other police authorities—is also the most active in protecting prostituted women and tackling kerb crawling? Is he aware that it is possible to prosecute effectively if police and prosecution authorities work together to protect prostituted women? Cleveland has begun to show that, but it is not being done elsewhere in the country.

Evan Harris: The hon. Lady's comments would be evidence for the Government's proposals if a causative association could be shown between the further criminalisation of prostitution and what she describes as an improved success rate for rape convictions. However, even she does not make the direct association— [Interruption.] I am sorry—I did not hear what she said just then; I shall give way to her again shortly, but I want to make my point clear. Policing prostitution as she described cannot be said to cause higher rates of conviction for rape. She states ex cathedra—I would like to see the published evidence—that there is such an association. Those on our side of the argument are talking about clear evidence of driving women away from the police. Making men more furtive will make women more vulnerable.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been no research on causation. But let me offer him two facts. First, approximately 20 per cent. of all the prosecutions for kerb crawling in the country happen in Cleveland. Secondly, Cleveland police authority has double the average success rate, and a much higher success rate than the nearest police service, for rape prosecution. That authority takes seriously the violence against women that is inherent in prostitution. I believe that, as a result—though no study has been funded and completed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Lady, and the House generally, that consideration of this group finishes at 9 o'clock and that many hon. Members are trying to catch my eye? The hon. Gentleman who has the Floor has been speaking for a long time. Interventions are helpful to the debate, but deny other hon. Members the opportunity to speak, so perhaps hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Evan Harris: Perhaps it will be best if I do not take any more interventions.
	I have the utmost respect for the way in which the hon. Lady has put her case on this matter in the past few months. However, all I can say about her comments is that she is entitled to her own opinions, but not to her own facts. We need evidence-based policy, which seeks to protect women and punish the real offenders.
	New clause 25 would make it an offence for a person to make or promise payment, or use the sexual services of a prostitute, when he knows or ought to know that the woman essentially does not consent. Associated with that is a prison sentence, which is the proper penalty befitting the offence of deliberately having sex with someone who does not consent, or of being reckless—the new clause has a wide recklessness test—of that fact. In the worst cases a long prison sentence can be expected, because it cannot be right for such an offence to be greeted with a fine.
	The fundamental difference between us is, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights makes clear, that the Government's approach has no evidence to back up its effectiveness. It is not sufficiently clear for users to know when they are committing an offence, and it will make matters worse for the prostitutes because the men will be driven to seek out the exchange of money for services in a place where they will be less likely to be detected.

Keith Vaz: rose—

Philip Davies: rose—

Evan Harris: I have nearly come to the end of my speech, but I shall give way twice before concluding.

Keith Vaz: I am happy to accept "I have nearly come to the end of my speech."

Philip Davies: The new clause specifically states that a person commits an offence when they know or "ought to know" that somebody is "the victim of trafficking" and so on. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "ought to know"? I am not entirely sure what that means.

Evan Harris: "Ought to know" is a recklessness test, which basically means that if the court decides that it is reasonable that the person should have known, given the information in front of him, that the other person was not consenting—that the person was controlled, or whatever definition we use—he would be committing an offence. I hope that I have answered the question.
	Now I shall respond to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). He is right: the case has been made for new clauses 4 and 25, and I hope that the House will support them both.

Fiona Mactaggart: Given that so many hon. Members wish to speak, I aim to be brief. I want to speak about amendment (a) to amendment 47, amendment (a) to amendment 51 and amendments 215 and 216. Some are amendments to the amendments that the Home Secretary tabled to clause 13.
	Earlier, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) reminded us of what, for many of us, is the trigger for the debate: the violence that is inherent in prostitution, and the cause of the fact that prostituted women are, according to the  British Medical Journal, 40 times as likely to die a violent death as other women.
	The Government's proposal for a strict liability offence, which targets demand for prostitution, is based on clear evidence from other European countries that such an offence can reduce trafficking and also the demand for prostitution. For example, in Sweden, the number of men who pay for sex has reduced in the time that that country has had a stricter but comparable offence, from 13.6 per cent. to below 8 per cent. On the whole, that 8 per cent. pays for sex outside Sweden. Other Nordic countries have followed Sweden, including Norway. Despite being so much smaller than Sweden, it had a massively larger population of women who were trafficked for sexual purposes. Norway perceived that as a serious human rights problem, which it had to address. Finland has a slightly half-hearted version of the offence, with few prosecutions, although more have begun to be conducted.
	Countries that have taken the opposite approach, such as the Netherlands, regret it and have experienced the growth of criminality and abuse that is inherent in prostitution.
	It is also important to realise that public opinion on the issue can follow leadership. The Swedish law has become more popular since it was introduced. When the Minister for Women and Equality commissioned research in the United Kingdom into whether people thought it right to make it illegal to pay for sexual services, to start with, only a third thought so. When there was a prompt and people were asked whether such a law should be part of a campaign to reduce trafficking and exploitation, a clear majority of respondents supported it. That is why, despite being profoundly attracted by the Swedish approach, I felt it right to support the Home Secretary's more limited definition, which says that there should be a strict liability offence of paying for the sexual services of someone who is controlled for gain.
	However, I am anxious that the further amendments that my right hon. Friend has tabled will limit the proposed offence more than I believe she intends to. I think it certain that the exploited women of Ipswich would not be covered by the language used in amendment 47, which refers to persons subjected to "force, deception or threats". We are talking about vulnerable young women whose vulnerability is exploited, sometimes with violence, but sometimes with profound emotional blackmail and with psychological pressure and force. If we are to keep to the original intention of the Bill, it is essential that we ensure that the—I think inadvertent—over-narrowing that is inherent in the Government's amendments is overcome.
	That is why I have proposed amendments to the Government's amendments. In doing so, I have used language from other legislation. Although there are profound disagreements between the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and me, for example, everybody in the House is absolutely united in wanting to protect women who are controlled, exploited, deceived, psychologically threatened and so on. My amendments, which use language drawn from the UN protocol on trafficking and from our legislation on forced marriages, would have the effect of including all the persons whom we wish to include. However, my amendments would do that without causing the problem caused by the original language, whereby, for example, a maid or a landlord could be described as controlling a prostitute or woman for gain. I always denied that that problem, which is portrayed as a common one, existed, but one has to face it when one has lost an argument.
	The language that I have included says, first, that force should include psychological threats. That is language drawn straight from the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007. Secondly, I have referred to the exploitation of a person's vulnerability. That language is drawn from article 3 of the UN protocol on trafficking, which says:
	"'Trafficking in persons' shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force"—
	that is similar language to the Home Secretary's amendment 47—
	"or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception"—
	again, that phrase is used in the Home Secretary's amendment—
	"of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person".
	In fact, my amendments are still narrower than the international definition of trafficking. Nevertheless, I believe that they incorporate the fundamental issues.
	I have talked to Home Office Ministers about that. I think that we are on the same page, but we need to start writing on it. Let us be clear: we are talking about an offence that will be tried in the magistrates court. It rightly carries a low penalty, and the reason is that the aim is to deter demand and ensure that those who would seek to pay an exploited woman for sex should obey the rule for any buyer anywhere: caveat emptor—buyer beware—and take care. For example, if one of our constituents came to us and said, "I bought this bottle of perfume from a table outside the shops, but it doesn't smell of anything, even though it says 'Dior' on the label," we would all be inclined to say, "Well, you have avoided the protection that you might have had if you'd gone into Debenhams and bought your perfume from there." The situation that we are talking about is exactly the same.

Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend is arguing that the Government's proposals as amended by her would help to keep women safe and help victims of trafficking. Could she cite evidence that the laws in Sweden have been effective in doing that? She gave no information on that point. Have the laws in the countries that she has named been subject to reviews of their effectiveness, as has been the case in New Zealand, which she has not cited, but where completely the opposite approach has been adopted?

Fiona Mactaggart: Those laws have indeed been subject to such review. There is quite clear evidence from research showing the extent to which there has been a reduction in trafficking in Sweden. I cannot find the citation, which is buried somewhere in this heap of paper, but I will send it to my hon. Friend by e-mail. That is also evidenced by the figures that I gave comparing Sweden and Norway. She referred to New Zealand, where there has been a Government-sponsored survey of the impact of the law. In this debate we are looking into how we can use the prevention of demand to protect women, and we are considering a legal mechanism to effect that prevention of demand. However, there are other mechanisms to prevent demand.
	Small communities, where people know each other, act as a very effective mechanism to prevent demand. If someone knows the guy knocking on the door of the brothel and is aware that some of the women in the brothel are exploited or controlled by other people, they will be likely to tell their neighbours that he is sleeping with exploited women and paying for it. That changes the nature of the sex market in New Zealand—the fact that it is miles away from anywhere also changes it. The community is very small there and it is different from other places. I have quite specifically compared us to similarly diverse and similarly densely populated European countries that, I believe, have stronger lessons for Britain.

Keith Vaz: I know that my hon. Friend has a great interest and passion in the subject. However, she has clearly not had the opportunity to read the Home Affairs Committee report into human trafficking, which we published last Thursday, following a year-long investigation. The best way to stop demand is to stop the women from being trafficked into the country. That means going to the source countries. Once those women get here, it is too late. My hon. Friend's complaint is actually against prostitution. It is not about human trafficking; she just wants to stop prostitutes.

Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend is using an inaccurate definition of trafficking. Trafficking does not require people merely to be transferred across a border. Rather, trafficked women are often moved around within countries. There are women trafficked from Glasgow to Nottingham, Slough or London daily. We therefore cannot simply deal with such gross exploitation and violence towards women by protecting women from Romania or Thailand; we have to protect the women in our own communities who are trafficked and exploited through violence, pimping and abuse.

Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Fiona Mactaggart: May I just finish this point?
	This is a point on which the Government and I do not completely agree, but I have chosen to support them in what I believe they are trying to achieve. I urge the Minister to accept my amendments because, without them, he will not achieve what I believe he is trying to achieve. The Government have identified the ill as the exploitation and control of a prostituted woman by another person. In effect, that is a modern day form of slavery. We are talking about women who do not have a choice because of "force, deception or threats", to use the Government's words. We also need to include the psychological exploitation that is so often at the heart of prostitution.
	The Bill will not do what the legislation in Sweden has done. It will not make any man who pays for sexual services an offender. There is a strong argument for doing that. I believe that buying someone else's sexuality destroys human relations and creates a grossly unequal society. At present, however, I am not arguing for that position. I am hoping that the Government will accept my amendments and ensure that this offence will include women who are controlled by psychological means and exploited because they are vulnerable. Ministers have taken that position from their platforms in the past, and said that those women should be protected.

Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend responded carefully to my earlier intervention, saying that there was evidence that trafficking in countries such as Sweden had been reduced. However, she did not address the question of whether violence against women in the sex industry per se had been reduced. In relation to New Zealand, does she not think that that country has just as many big cities as Sweden? To suggest that it has no large communities is an inaccurate reflection of that country.

Fiona Mactaggart: It does have large communities, but they are not as diverse as those in Britain. The mechanisms that we would need to use extend beyond those that would work in New Zealand. I have not challenged the New Zealand Government-sponsored review of their legislation, although I have spoken to women who have worked with prostituted women in Britain and who currently work with prostituted women in New Zealand. They believe that that report is not a proper description of what is happening on the ground there.
	I did not answer my hon. Friend's question about violence against prostituted women in Sweden because I could not find the citations that she asked for. I can tell her, however, that I have spoken to Kajsa Wahlberg, a chief police officer in Sweden, who has made the specific point that one of the consequences of the Swedish legislation is that women are safer.
	I want to conclude by looking at the issue of human rights. People have cited the conclusion of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that introducing strict liability in the Bill would make it difficult for an individual to know how to regulate their conduct, and suggested that that could lead to an abuse of the rights of the punter. I would like to direct Members' attention to the parts of that report that clearly state that measures aimed at preventing prostitution can actually protect human rights.
	Our international human rights obligations are quite clear under the United Nations convention against transnational organised crime, the convention on action against trafficking in human beings, the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, the Beijing platform for action, and the declaration on the elimination of violence against women. All those international human rights instruments require states parties to tackle the demand for sexual exploitation. The Bill is our first serious attempt to do that since the legislation on kerb crawling 20 years ago. I urge Members to support my amendments and to support the Bill.

David Ruffley: It is important to put on record on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition that the trafficking and exploitation of women and children is a vile and disgusting trade, and we can all agree that the Bill tries to tackle it more effectively. The question is the means that we should use. I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak—in retrospect, I think it might have been a good idea to have had two days for Report—so I shall quickly state Her Majesty's Opposition's view on two points.
	First, there has been a great deal of debate on the definition of "controlled for gain". Many of us thought that the definition in the original drafting was too broad and would not successfully target those who had been trafficked. Paradoxically, it might have caught many of those who assisted prostitutes in their trade. Government amendments 46 to 48 seek to narrow the original broad wording, and the Government are to be congratulated on that attempt. However, we believe that the language in new clause 25 is more appropriate, for the simple reason that it tracks the language relating to trafficking that is used in the Palermo protocol, which states:
	"'Trafficking in persons' shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation."
	That definition is included in new clause 25.
	My second point relates to strict liability. It is important that people listening to the debate understand why we are wary and sceptical about this issue, and why we do not support the Government's importation of strict liability into the offences in clauses 13 and 14. We are not going soft on the horrible exploitation of vulnerable young women and children in any shape or form, but we do have a concern about the nature of strict liability offences generally. That concern has been put across rather well by Liberty, which has stated that such offences
	"have traditionally been enacted in the regulatory sphere or for fairly minor offences where it is obvious that an offence has been committed. The strict liability standard is inappropriate where a person is unable to ascertain whether what they are doing is unlawful."
	The proposed offence will apply whether or not a person knows that a prostitute is being controlled for gain or trafficked.
	Liberty went on to state a point of principle:
	"We are not aware of any other criminal offence of this nature where the strict liability standard applies allowing no prospect of a defence. It is worrying that such a move is being made here and it would be extremely concerning if this approach were to be extended."
	That is our concern, too. Is this a slippery slope? Does it represent the thin end of the wedge? We are going into territory here that would be best avoided.

David Burrowes: My hon. Friend mentions a point of principle, but is there not also a point of practice in respect of parity with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, especially where there is an incorporation of a mental element? In the light of the proposed amendments, we also need to reflect on circumstances involving forced threats and deception; there should be parity of sentencing—not a level 3 fine, but an either-way offence.

David Ruffley: My hon. Friend anticipates me, and his points are well made. That is why we see merit in the proposal in new clause 25 for a "know or ought to know" test instead of a strict liability test, which would mean that it would be an offence only if the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the prostitute was controlled for gain. That will ensure that strict liability does not apply and it also deals with the issue of parity, to which my hon. Friend referred. The offence would require actual knowledge of or recklessness in respect of the circumstances; the person who should have known should be presumed to have had knowledge.

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is making his case fairly, but what he is actually saying is that there is going to be very little deterrent and no discouragement. I am not all surprised that Liberty, which is a libertarian organisation, is defending the rights of men to have sex almost on any terms, provided that they can put their money on the table and say later that they had no idea of the conditions of any of the women that they paid to have sex with. Liberty is a deeply reactionary and conservative organisation, whereas we need a more liberal interpretation of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman does not like having his intervention abbreviated, but we are now running very short of time and I think that he has made his point.

David Ruffley: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that is traditionally put across in such discussions and we have heard it debated many times. The point here, however, is that moving away from strict liability is not being soft on the offence nor indicative of failing to want a deterrent. I shall rapidly cite the reasons for that claim, before allowing other Members, many of whom have a great deal of knowledge in this subject, to speak.
	We believe that the penalties for men who engage in sexual relations with trafficked people should be strengthened, and we support amendments 237 and 240 precisely because they will toughen the penalties for those caught under the new offence. Currently, a person found guilty of the new offence is liable to a fine of up to £1,000. The Government have not proposed any amendments to alter that, but under the amendments I mentioned, a person found guilty of the new offence under clauses 13 and 14 will be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. On conviction for an indictable offence, a person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. Those severe penalties are appropriate given the ghastliness of the crime and offences that we are debating.
	It is particularly important for Conservative Members to underscore the abhorrent nature of paying for sex with trafficked individuals, and it is in that spirit of toughness, while keeping a certain element of practicability in the back of our minds, that we believe we should move away from a strict liability test and replace it with a "know or should have known" test instead. That is the purport of new clause 25, which we support.

Lynda Waltho: Many of us have had problems with lap-dancing clubs in our constituencies. The arguments were well rehearsed at length in Committee, so I willnot go over them again. I would like to speak to amendments 194 and 199, and Government amendment 54.
	We have had trouble in our constituencies because lap-dancing clubs are currently licensed solely under the Licensing Act 2003. Those clubs share the same licences as cafés and karaoke bars and since the 2003 Act it has become very much easier for lap-dancing clubs to obtain a licence and far more difficult for our communities to have a say. Local authorities are also prevented from putting in place vital controls to govern how many licences can be granted in an area and whether private booths should be permitted.
	Industry mapping has shown that new lap-dancing venues are opening on a nearly weekly basis and legal advice has shown that concerns relating to gender equality cannot be raised by local authorities or residents during the licensing process. This places local authorities in direct breach of their duties under the gender equality duty, which came into force in 2007.
	I applaud the Government's response to this issue, but they have gone only so far. I think that the Bill is seriously undermined by the fact that the proposed sexual encounter venue category is optional and that venues where lap dancing is provided less than once a month are exempt from the category. In other words, the SEV licensing category is optional. Local authorities will not have to adopt it, although universal application has recently been advocated by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, following a lengthy review of the Licensing Act 2003.
	It is crucial that we adopt the SEV category because it will guarantee local communities a voice. The current optional arrangement means that our communities will be deprived of that voice, so they are not guaranteed a greater say in the licensing of lap-dancing clubs because the outcome will depend on whether the local authority in question chooses to adopt that option.

Celia Barlow: In Brighton and Hove, money was ring-fenced for a private Bill to change the licensing law, and there is a will among all parties to control the spread of lap dancing, particularly in small communities like my own in Hove or Slade. There is concern that, on a temporary basis, it will possible to hold up to 11 such events a year, and it will be very difficult to police them in the same successful way that Sussex police have been able to police the larger venues.

Lynda Waltho: Indeed, and it is very difficult—in fact, impossible—for local people to object to those temporary licences; only the police are able to do so, and in my experience they rarely do. This state of affairs applies despite massive objections, a 10,000-name petition that went to No. 10 Downing street and almost mayhem in some constituencies—not least my own.
	We also need to protect local authorities from being vulnerable to challenge by the lap-dancing industry, which is quite a strong advocate. Furthermore, a sub-group of almost virtual lap-dancing clubs is growing, with businesses aiming to move their stable of women—a term used previously—from venue to venue. We really must not allow that to happen. We must protect local authorities from their vulnerability to this strong and powerful industry. The voluntary aspect governing the application of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and the sexual encounter venue category will create an uneven licensing landscape, vulnerable to exploitation by the industry. Before the Licensing Act, uneven licensing between local authorities enabled lap-dancing clubs to exert pressure in favour of looser regulation. In 2002, for example, Westminster city council came under pressure to relax a no-nudity clause following the decision of a neighbouring borough council, Camden, to do so. Unfortunately, unless we can amend the new clause, that risk will be reintroduced.
	It has been argued that universal reforms will impose a burden on local authorities, but closer examination of the actual process involved in implementation of the new clause reveals that that is simply not the case. Optional reforms will require local authorities to undergo eight procedures to install the controls that the new clause would introduce. However, if the reforms were applied universally, the process that each local authority would then undertake would be halved, and would require significantly fewer resources. We are talking about a low-cost procedure for local authorities, regardless of whether lap dancing clubs are involved.

David Lepper: I believe that fees are set nationally under the Licensing Act, but under the usual regime the local authority can levy a charge for the application for a licence which covers the costs of the administration involved in consideration of that application. Would not universal reforms be cost-neutral?

Lynda Waltho: Indeed. I intend to say more about that later.
	Optional reforms would reduce the burden on local authorities that chose to adopt the new controls. The increased costs of enforcing the new clause would arise when an application was made. However, the costs of the process would be absorbed by licensing fees, and incurred by lap-dancing club operators rather than local authorities. That contrasts with the current circumstances, in which local authorities are not guaranteed to recoup fees through the premises licensing costs. Local authorities with existing premises would likewise be able to retrieve the cost of requiring venues to apply for the new SEV licence. The new category would, in fact, create efficiency savings for authorities.
	Many local authorities currently undertake enforcement work against premises licence-holders who have specified dancing on their licences but who are, in fact, hosting lap-dancing events. The new clause will reduce the amount of work required in that context by providing for adequate scrutiny and funding through the increased licensing fees. It should also provide a solution that delivers local flexibility. Universal application of the new category is consistent with that, allowing local authorities more discretion when it comes to licensing clubs. Sexual encounter venue licensing affords flexibility within application and renewal rates. The duration of licences and a wide range of other factors could be included. The localities in which the sexual encounter venues could be licensed are assigned by individual local authorities. The definition of a locality is also determined by local authorities, as are licensing conditions.

Daniel Rogerson: At the beginning of her speech, the hon. Lady said that the arguments had been advanced before. That is in no small part down to her, and I congratulate her on the work that she has done. Does she agree that lap-dancing operators and their representatives ought to welcome a consistent approach across the country, which would enable them to know exactly how they will be treated because they would know that their establishments would be treated as sexual encounter establishments throughout the country?

Lynda Waltho: They ought to welcome it, but of course they do not, because they prefer an uneven mixture of provision enabling them to exploit loopholes. Their industry has a history of exploiting loopholes and gaining as a result, and I do not expect its approach to change.
	In its current form, the Bill exempts premises that provide lap dancing less frequently than once a month from requiring a sex encounter venue licence. Removal of that exemption is crucial, because we need to prevent the growth of lap dancing sub-markets. The proposed exemption will exclude a large number of premises that hold lap-dancing nights provided by lap-dancing agencies that take bookings in a range of public houses, bars and hotel venues. That sub-market is likely to grow in the light of such an exemption, especially in the context of falling alcohol revenue during the economic recession.
	That is demonstrated by the recent case of the White Hart lap-dancing application in Lewisham, in London. A landlord stated:
	"lap dancers are the sole salvation for my struggling pub".
	Mapping of the lap-dancing industry between May and November 2008 revealed that a new lap-dancing venue opened, on average, every week during that period. Half those openings were in public houses or bars which now provide specialist lap-dancing nights.
	We can prevent additional burdens from being placed on local authorities. The frequency-based exemption will increase the workload of local authorities, which will face higher enforcement costs in order to ensure that venues do not host lap-dancing events more than 11 times a year. That will place further financial pressure on authorities that are struggling now to recoup existing licensing costs through low premises licence fees.
	I believe that the new clauses and amendments will add to what the Government have already done. I note and welcome Government amendment 54, which attempts to address the possible abuse of the TEN system, but I do not believe that it is strong enough.

Andrew Slaughter: I entirely agree that the Bill is already having an effect. I offer as an example the fact that a major lap-dancing venue in west Kensington has withdrawn its appeal because it could see the writing on the wall. My hon. Friend is also right that temporary event notices are a way around regulation. The debate on this Bill has drawn attention to the fact that TENs in general—not just in relation to lap-dance clubs—represent a major loophole. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be welcome if the Government were to issue a statement that the TEN system in general should be looked at so that local populations can challenge their use in the same way as they can challenge licences?

Lynda Waltho: Indeed. The Minister spoke earlier about possible Department for Culture, Media and Sport plans to give councillors a voice. That—a community voice—is what has been missing. If the TEN system is looked at across the board, we will get what I and many of my colleagues started out in politics to support: a voice for local people. That is what has been missing.

Bob Spink: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems with the TEN is that local councils are either reluctant to collect the evident to prosecute, or do not have the required staff to do so, and so encourage breaches, which local people do not want? Local people do not understand why the Government are not taking stronger action.

Lynda Waltho: That is absolutely the case.
	In conclusion, I believe that the removal of the frequency-based exemption and universal application are crucial to ensure that these welcome reforms to lap-dancing club licensing deliver real and robust change, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to revisit the area covered by the amendments, if not here then in another place.

John Gummer: Because of the way in which the House works, I am the only Member representing the Ipswich area who is able to refer to the terrible situation that arose there, and on which this Bill importantly bears.
	Before I do so, I would like to say that I agree with the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) about the licensing of the occasional venue; it certainly will be misused, and I hope the Government will resile from that. I do not, however, agree with the hon. Lady's comments about local authorities. They must have as much freedom as possible to decide whether they wish to use these provisions. I would just say to her that different parts of the country are very different, and it is perfectly reasonable for a local community to decide, through its local authority, that it does not need to have this kind of operation; it should be allowed to do that.
	I turn now to what for me is the most important part of the Bill. I agreed very much with the comments of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who put the point very clearly. It is difficult for those of us who have a strong view about the nature of prostitution to speak in a way that is wholly acceptable to those for whom that view seems too harsh, or, indeed, too old-fashioned. I just think that the exploitation of human beings is at the heart of evil. There is little that one can say about it except that it is deeply offensive to the nature of human beings. To exploit the vulnerable—and particularly, if I may say so, those who are vulnerable because they are women—is offensive in a way that practically nothing else is. Therefore, we ought to talk about this subject very seriously, and I want to congratulate the Government on the delicacy of the manner in which they have sought to find an answer that helps us to move away from the old arguments. We have gone through a period when it was thought so improper for personal sexual activities to be affected by the law that we could not get beyond that and see how sometimes the human rights bit is about the exploited person and not about my human rights to follow to the nth degree any desire I might have. It is, I fear, 40 years since I wrote a book on this subject. In considering whether one might bring it up to date, I must say that I am appalled how right I was in some prognostications of what would arise from the perfectly reasonable liberal attitudes that made people think that we ought not to be as judgmental as historical societies had been. I join those who hold the view that the problem is that the pendulum has moved to a degree whereby it is difficult to discuss this subject without being thought to be censorious.
	I wish to say simply that I hope the Government will move a little further, because it is very necessary to take on board what the hon. Member for Slough said. Our definition of trafficking must not be limited to the horrible but obvious business of collecting women—it is not always women, but it is in general—from poor and depressed communities in one part of the world and moving them to another part of the world where people have the money to indulge themselves in this way.
	I must tell my own Front-Bench team that I thought it unacceptable to try to move away from having strict liability, because that is crucial; if someone wishes to pay for sex, they must recognise that in doing so they take on a particular burden. If they think that what they are doing is reasonable, they must recognise that the downside is with them and not with the woman concerned. I am sorry that our team has moved from the position that I thought it had taken—one of understanding that the libertarian position means being concerned about the woman in these circumstances—so I hope that it will move from the position it has taken.
	One other issue must be raised very clearly. I have gone through the experience of those terrible few weeks in Ipswich when the bodies of a number of women were deposited in some of the most beautiful parts of my constituency. One must remember the circumstances of those girls, who had but a short period before been the light of the families who bore them. I wish to make that point, because we are not necessarily talking about girls who come from some appalling background and who are forced into this situation; we are talking about girls who, for one reason or another, find themselves believing that there is no other way in which they can pay for things—in this case, we are talking almost universally about drug habits. I cannot see that such a situation is any less exploitative than one where somebody is standing behind them with a knife, one where they know that they will be beaten up or one where they have been threatened that they will be deported. This situation is just as exploitative, and the suppliers of the drugs know perfectly well where the money is coming from. I do not see that one can make so clear a distinction between these things.
	I come to the conclusion that it is better to move further towards the position that the hon. Member for Slough described so well, simply because we have to find a way in which the source of the money is restricted. This is a matter of trying to ensure that those who make this kind of prostitution successful enough to pay for the drugs or successful enough for the people to engage in trafficking find it more and more difficult.
	Is it not reasonable in a civilised society to say to people whose very act of paying for sex is exploitative, at least to some extent—to use the words of the hon. Member for Slough—"Cave emptor. You have to make the decision, and the responsibility is with you"? Yes, it is true that we probably would not do this in almost any other circumstance in a free society, but we are not talking about any other circumstance. We are talking about the exploitation of one human being by another.
	I am going to avoid any moralism, but I cannot escape the fact that all civilisations have understood that the central point about the difference between good and evil is that good is never exploitative; it is always free and it is always about individual, personal choices, whereas evil is always about exploiting someone else for one's own gain. If that is the case, I do not think that the strict liability test is a bad thing. I would move much further towards the position held by the hon. Member for Slough.

John McDonnell: May I just say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is no way to run a country, is it? We have had two hours of debate on amendments and about 15 more amendments will not even be discussed. We are talking about the prospect of legislation that will put prostitutes' lives at risk and will allow people to be arrested, detained and deprived of their liberty. We have had two hours, and that is all. I say to the Government that we cannot go on like this with criminal justice legislation.
	We also cannot legislate on the basis of such lack of knowledge. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), I have tabled questions just to try to get some information. We asked the Government how many prostitutes there are in the country, and about their ages, sexes and basic circumstances, and we were told that information was not available. We then found that 80,000 was the figure used in one of the reports—one reference mentioned that a vast proportion were trafficked. We asked how many were trafficked and the Government estimate that came back was 4,000. I asked about incidents of violence in relation to prostitution, and was told that the information was not held centrally. I asked for information about prosecutions concerning brothels, and was told that information was not held centrally. We not only do not give ourselves the time to discuss legislation, but we legislate in absolute ignorance of the facts of what is happening on the ground.
	Let me very briefly address the amendments tabled in my name, and particularly new clause 37. I would welcome a Division on that new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I accept that we might have to make choices between new clause 4 and new clause 37. If there has to be a priority, I would support a Division on new clause 4, because it relates to children.
	A number of us have tried as best we can to get as much information on the subject as possible. I pay tribute to the English Collective of Prostitutes, which has brought together the Safety First coalition. I have met a number of representatives of the constituency of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and particularly from Ipswich. I have met the GMB sex workers branch; the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, the religious group; Imperial College, which has carried out research; the Royal College of Nursing; the Women's Institute, which got involved in these discussions; the National Association of Probation Officers; and Women Against Rape. They have tried to raise at least some awareness and consciousness of what prostitution is like in this country. My amendments are based on that information and on the level of understanding that many of us have gained.
	I have met sex workers in this country—men and women—who are sex workers by choice. They feel that there is no reason why they should be penalised for offering what they believe is a service to other human beings. They do not believe that that relationship is exploitative. Like others, I find that difficult to accept, but we have met those people and discussed their role with them.

Lynne Jones: Criminalising such activities makes it difficult for people to make the choice to exit from that sort of work.

John McDonnell: What came across from all the information we have gleaned, and from the Government's strategy discussions in the early stages, is that there are women and men who undertake such work from choice, but most others—the vast majority—do not. They are there because of push factors such as poverty and drug dependency, and they often have mental health problems or other background problems. They need assistance to get "off the game", as they say. The one message that comes across loud and clear is that anything that criminalises their actions in any way undermines their ability to leave those occupations voluntarily.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most effective exit projects in London, based at Toynbee hall, supports the new orders for prostitutes? Those workers with drug-dependent prostitutes say that often there are co-dependency issues that can be dealt with only if the prostitutes are brought to diversion projects by the court.

John McDonnell: We all bring anecdotal evidence. I have been convening Safety First Coalition meetings for more than three years and I have met a group of people who work with prostitutes in such centres and I have to tell my hon. Friend that a vast proportion of them oppose any measures that would introduce criminality in the system, because engagement with the legal system is such a deterrent.

Lynne Jones: To counter the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), on Friday I was at a meeting of people involved in a project in Balsall Heath on the boundary of my constituency. The people in that group are very much of the view that it is so important to build up trust with the people they are trying to help that they do not think a coercive and punitive approach would achieve that.

John McDonnell: In fact, in the consultations the Government undertook, the view expressed time and again in various representations was that punitive measures actually make matters worse. It did not help that the Government did not publish the 67 responses to their consultation—a vast proportion of which opposed their proposals on criminalisation. As we learned from Ipswich, the overall priority is the need for safety. Anything that undermines the safety of sex workers should be avoided.
	On new clause 4, I endorse the assertion made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that we are talking about children who are victims. Almost every children's agency with which we have had discussions has said that we need to ensure that there is decriminalisation. Anything that increases the stigma for children and prevents them from coming forward will undermine their ability to seek protection and security.
	Turning to new clauses 37 and 38, we have to recognise that women work together in brothels for safety reasons. My new clause would simply bring into legislation what Ministers were arguing for only a few years ago: a recognition that where two women come together, with a maid or madam—however we describe her—they should not be prosecuted under legislation relating to brothels. When we undertook our consultation, the English Collective of Prostitutes provided their analysis showing that it is 10 times safer for women to work in a brothel than to work on the street. As was mentioned earlier, small brothels often involve people working co-operatively to ensure their safety.
	In 2005, when my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was a Home Office Minister, she announced that two women should be able to work together from premises, yet that idea has been dropped and we are now introducing relatively punitive measures. In 2006, the Home Office acknowledged that—I quote from an article in  The Times—
	"the present definition of brothel ran counter to advice that, in the interests of safety, women should not sell sex alone."
	In recent months, the RCN has also debated the fact that nurses and health workers who work with sex workers are fearful for the safety of women who work on the street and are urging the Government to reconsider. At that time, the Government and others were considering four women working together. I am willing to accept a compromise of two women if that would increase their safety. The reality of the sex trade in this country is that women are working together to provide one another with safety and security.
	Mention has been made of New Zealand, where a law makes a distinction between small, collectively run brothels of up to four people working together and larger brothels, which must be licensed. All the reports from New Zealand have said that the new legislation has increased the safety and security of women by enabling them to work together in that way.
	Some of the information that we have managed to glean suggests that prosecutions for keeping a brothel used for prostitution have been increasing. In 2004, there were only three such prosecutions; in 2007—the latest figures that we could extract—there were 41. So the increasing pressure that is being put on women working together in brothels is forcing women on to the streets and into insecure and unsafe conditions.
	One of the reasons why police harassment of brothels and sex workers has increased is, unfortunately, the incentive provided by the proceeds of crime legislation, whereby 25 per cent. of any assets confiscated during a raid on a brothel goes towards the police, 25 per cent. goes towards the Crown Prosecution Service and the Inland Revenue takes the rest. That is almost like the Government and the police living off immoral earnings. No wonder that there is an incentive to increase the number of raids on brothels.
	What we are asking for in the new clause is simply a recognition of the reality that women will continue to work in the sex trade. If they do, they should be kept as safe as possible, and one way of doing so is to enable them to work in small numbers in brothels, where they can work co-operatively and therefore avoid the threat of being out on the street.
	There are further amendments in my name. The Government are trying to introduce legislation whereby someone who is found in the same place twice in three months can be prosecuted for loitering or soliciting. I do not believe that something that happens twice in three months can be construed as persistent behaviour. We should reduce the period, and in amendment 6, I suggest using the phrase "twice in one week"—otherwise, we will draw more people into the criminal prosecution process, and they will therefore be more unsafe if they work in that way.
	In amendment 7, I refer back to the debate that we had on previous legislation when a system of penalties was introduced whereby a person goes before a court, is given an order and placed before a supervisor. In all the discussions that we have had with NAPO—the trade union that represents the supervisors, given that the Government inform us that they will be appointed by the probation service—it has told us that the resources and trained staff are not available. In fact, the probation service is being cut back at the moment, as we learned from a seminar today. Therefore, the staffing is not available.
	If such people, who lead extremely chaotic lives, do not attend a series of three interviews, they will be placed back before the courts. We are told today that that will be done as soon as practicable. We have been given such assurances on other new laws and crimes, and the phrase "as soon as practicable" can mean that someone is detained at least overnight. Our fear is that someone could be detained for up to 72 hours. That would have a devastating effect not only on individuals, but on their families. Many of them have children who need to be cared for. Therefore, my view is that that provision will render itself unworkable, while having a deleterious impact on the women themselves and on their families. It will be a way to intimidate women even further and undermine their ability to get off the game.

Paul Beresford: In the 30 seconds left, may I sound a positive note? I welcome new clause 22, which supersedes what I have been trying to do for many years, namely increase the penalty for encryption of child abuse pornography that is tucked away in data, and failure to give the key. I used the example of an individual who had 150 gigabytes of encrypted material. There were four years of attempts to break the encryption, but the attempts failed. The gentleman concerned has just been sentenced, and the best that could be managed for him was a community order for three years. That happened about four days ago. In that example, the judge tried to turn the matter to get the best result.
	 Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 New clause 22 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	 The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Loitering: decriminalisation of under 18 year olds

'(1) The Street Offences Act 1959 (c. 57) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) of section 1, after "prostitute", insert "aged 18 or over"'.— (Dr. Evan Harris.)
	 Brought up
	 Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	 The House divided: Ayes 64, Noes 286.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 25
	 — 
	Paying for sexual services of a prostitute known to be trafficked or coerced: England and Wales

'After section 53 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) insert—
	"53A Paying for sexual services of a prostitute known to be trafficked or coerced: England and Wales
	(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
	(a) A makes or promises payment for, or uses, the sexual services of prostitute (B), and
	(b) A knows, or ought to know,
	(i) that B is the victim of trafficking.
	(ii) that the sexual services have been provided through coercion of B,
	(iii) that B has provided sexual services in order to gain access to controlled drugs, or
	(iv) that a third party has influenced the activity of B by direction or instruction in circumstances where B does not freely consent to such direction or instruction.
	(2) It is irrelevant where the sexual services have been or will be provided.
	(3) In this section, 'trafficking' means the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.
	(4) In this section, 'coercion of B' includes—
	(a) violence against B or another person,
	(b) threats against B or another person, or
	(c) intimidation of B.
	(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."'.— (Dr. Evan Harris.)
	 Brought up.
	 Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	 The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 285.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 13
	 — 
	Paying for sexual services of a controlled prostitute: England and Wales

Amendments made: 46, page 15, line 27, leave out 'controlled for gain' and insert 'subjected to force etc.'.
	Amendment 47, page 15, line 30, leave out from '(B),' to end of line 32 and insert—
	'(b) a third person (C) has used force, deception or threats of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services for which A has made or promised payment, and
	(c) C acted for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).'.
	Amendment 48, page 15, line 36, leave out 'any of B's activities are controlled for gain' and insert
	'C has used force, deception or threats'.
	Amendment 49, page 16, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment 215, page 16, line 4, at end add—
	'(5) For the purposes of this section "force" includes coercion by threats or other psychological means including exploitation of vulnerability.'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 14
	 — 
	Paying for sexual services of a controlled prostitute: Northern Ireland

Amendments made: 50, page 16, line 8, leave out 'controlled for gain' and insert 'subjected to force etc.'.
	Amendment 51, page 16, line 11, leave out from '(B),' to end of line 13 and insert—
	'(b) a third person (C) has used force, deception or threats of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services for which A has made or promised payment, and
	(c) C acted for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).'.
	Amendment 52, page 16, line 17, leave out 'any of B's activities are controlled for gain' and insert
	'C has used force, deception or threats'.
	Amendment 53, page 16, line 19, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment 216, page 16, line 23, at end add—
	'(5) For the purposes of this section "force" includes coercion by threats or other psychological means including exploitation of vulnerability.'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 25
	 — 
	Regulation of lap dancing and other sex encounter venues etc

Amendments made: 54, page 22, line 1, leave out from 'which' to end of line 3 and insert
	'the provision of relevant entertainment as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) is such that, at the time in question and including any relevant entertainment which is being so provided at that time—
	(i) there have not been more than eleven occasions on which relevant entertainment has been so provided which fall (wholly or partly) within the period of 12 months ending with that time;
	(ii) no such occasion has lasted for more than 24 hours; and
	(iii) no such occasion has begun within the period of one month beginning with the end of any previous occasion on which relevant entertainment has been so provided (whether or not that previous occasion falls within the 12 month period mentioned in sub-paragraph (i));'.
	Amendment 55, page 22, line 5, at end insert—
	'(3A) The relevant national authority may by order amend or repeal sub-paragraph (3)(b).
	(3B) But no order under sub-paragraph (3A) may—
	(a) increase the number or length of occasions in any period on which sub-paragraph (3)(b) as originally enacted would permit relevant entertainment to be provided; or
	(b) provide for shorter intervals between such occasions.'.
	Amendment 56, page 22, line 17, at end insert—
	'(5A) A statutory instrument containing an order under sub-paragraph (3A) may not be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
	Amendment 57, page 22, line 18, leave out 'this paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraph (3)(c) or (4)'.
	Amendment 58, page 22, line 20, at end insert—
	'(6A) A statutory instrument containing an order under sub-paragraph (3A) may not be made by the Welsh Ministers unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.'.
	Amendment 59, page 22, line 21, leave out 'this paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraph (3)(c) or (4)'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Schedule 7
	 — 
	Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment made: 119, page 169, line 12, at end insert—
	'24A (1) Schedule 5 to that Act (other offences in respect of which power to make sexual offences prevention order applies) is amended as follows.
	(2) After paragraph 60 insert—
	"60ZA An offence under section 53 or 54 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (contravention of notice relating to encrypted information or tipping off in connection with such a notice)."
	(3) After paragraph 106 insert—
	"106A An offence under section 53 or 54 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (contravention of notice relating to encrypted information or tipping off in connection with such a notice)."
	(4) After paragraph 168 insert—
	"168ZA An offence under section 53 or 54 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (contravention of notice relating to encrypted information or tipping off in connection with such a notice)."'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 5
	 — 
	Police collaboration

Amendments made: 44, page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	'(4) A police authority may make an agreement which includes provision about the discharge of functions by employees who are under the direction and control of a chief officer only with the approval of that chief officer.'.
	Amendment 45, page 8, line 15, at end insert—
	'(1A) A notice under this section may provide for the termination of the agreement with immediate effect or at the end of a specified period.'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Schedule 7
	 — 
	Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 114, page 166, line 38, leave out 'or (3B)' and insert ', (3B) or (3F)'.
	Amendment 115, page 166, line 40, leave out 'or (3B)' and insert ', (3B) or (3F)'.
	Amendment 116, page 167, line 2, leave out 'or (3B)' and insert ', (3B) or (3F)'.
	Amendment 117, page 167, line 4, leave out 'or (3B)' and insert ', (3B) or (3F)'.
	Amendment 118, page 167, line 6, leave out 'or (3B)' and insert ', (3B) or (3F)'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 49
	 — 
	Power to retain seized property: England and Wales

Amendment made: 64, page 33, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 50
	 — 
	Power to retain seized property: Scotland

Amendment made: 65, page 34, line 38, leave out '126,'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 51
	 — 
	Power to retain seized property: Northern Ireland

Amendment made: 66, page 35, line 42, leave out paragraph (a).— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 52
	 — 
	Search and seizure of property: England and Wales

Amendments made: 67, page 38, line 36, at end insert—
	'Section 47B(11) is subject to this subsection.'.
	Amendment 68, page 41, line 33, leave out 'this section' and insert
	'section 52 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009'.
	Amendment 69, page 42, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment 70, page 43, leave out lines 39 and 40.
	Amendment 71, page 44, leave out lines 31 to 33.
	Amendment 72, page 45, line 15, at end insert—
	'47QA Release of property
	(1) This section applies in relation to property which—
	(a) has been seized by an appropriate officer under section 47C, and
	(b) is detained under or by virtue of any of sections 47J to 47M and 47P.
	(2) The property must be released if at any time an appropriate officer decides that the the detention condition is no longer met.
	(3) The detention condition is met for so long as—
	(a) any of the conditions in section 47B is met, and
	(b) there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion mentioned in section 47C(1).
	(4) Nothing in this section requires property to be released if there is a power to detain it otherwise than under or by virtue of sections 47J to 47M and 47P.
	(5) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any power or duty to release property that arises apart from this section.'.
	Amendment 73, page 45, line 15, at end insert—
	 'Code of practice about search and seizure and detention of property'.
	Amendment 74, page 45, line 23, after '41A', insert ', 44A'.
	Amendment 75, page 45, line 24, leave out '47M' and insert '47P'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 53
	 — 
	Search and seizure of property: Scotland

Amendments made: 76, page 48, line 14, at end insert—
	'Section 127B(11) is subject to this subsection.'.
	Amendment 77, page 51, line 11, leave out 'this section' and insert
	'section 53 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009'.
	Amendment 78, page 51, line 39, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment 79, page 54, line 23, at end insert—
	'127PA Release of property
	(1) This section applies in relation to property which—
	(a) has been seized by an appropriate officer under section 127C, and
	(b) is detained under or by virtue of any of sections 127J to 127M and 127P.
	(2) The property must be released if at any time an appropriate officer decides that the the detention condition is no longer met.
	(3) The detention condition is met for so long as—
	(a) any of the conditions in section 127B is met, and
	(b) there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion mentioned in section 127C(1).
	(4) Nothing in this section requires property to be released if there is a power to detain it otherwise than under or by virtue of sections 127J to 127M and 127P.
	(5) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any power or duty to release property that arises apart from this section.'.
	Amendment 80, page 54, line 23, at end insert—
	 'Guidance about search and seizure and detention of property'.
	Amendment 81, page 54, line 30, after '120A', insert ', 122A'.
	Amendment 82, page 54, line 31, leave out '127M' and insert '127P'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 54
	 — 
	Search and seizure of property: Northern Ireland

Amendments made: 83, page 57, line 11, at end insert—
	'Section 195B(11) is subject to this subsection.'.
	Amendment 84, page 60, line 5, leave out 'this section' and insert
	'section 54 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009'.
	Amendment 85, page 60, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment 86, page 62, leave out lines 9 and 10.
	Amendment 87, page 63, leave out lines 1 to 3.
	Amendment 88, page 63, line 31, at end insert—
	'195QA Release of property
	(1) This section applies in relation to property which—
	(a) has been seized by an appropriate officer under section 195C, and
	(b) is detained under or by virtue any of any of sections 195J to 195M and 195P.
	(2) The property must be released if at any time an appropriate officer decides that the the detention condition is no longer met.
	(3) The detention condition is met for so long as—
	(a) any of the conditions in section 195B is met, and
	(b) there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion mentioned in section 195C(1).
	(4) Nothing in this section requires property to be released if there is a power to detain it otherwise than under or by virtue of sections 195J to 195M and 195P.
	(5) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any power or duty to release property that arises apart from this section.'.
	Amendment 89, page 63, line 31, at end insert—
	 'Code of practice about search and seizure and detention of property'.
	Amendment 90, page 63, line 39, after '190A', insert ', 193A'.
	Amendment 91, page 63, line 40, leave out '195M', and insert '195P'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 55
	 — 
	Power to sell seized personal property: England and Wales

Amendments made: 92, page 65, line 34, at end insert—
	'(za) first, they must be applied in payment of such expenses incurred by a person acting as an insolvency practitioner as are payable under this subsection by virtue of section 432;'.
	Amendment 93, page 66, line 5, leave out 'either of'.
	Amendment 94, page 66, line 16, at end insert—
	'(3A) In section 55(3)(b) (payment of sums received by designated officer under section 54 or otherwise: insolvency practitioners' expenses) after "section 54(2)(a)" insert "or 67D(2)(za)".'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 56
	 — 
	Power to sell seized personal property: Scotland

Amendments made: 95, page 68, line 1, at end insert—
	'(za) first, they must be applied in payment of such expenses incurred by a person acting as an insolvency practitioner as are payable under this subsection by virtue of section 432;'.
	Amendment 96, page 68, line 20, at end insert—
	'( ) in subsection (3)(b) after "section 130(3)(a)" insert "or 131D(2)(za)".'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 57
	 — 
	Power to sell seized personal property: Northern Ireland

Amendments made: 97, page 69, line 38, at end insert—
	'(za) first, they must be applied in payment of such expenses incurred by a person acting as an insolvency practitioner as are payable under this subsection by virtue of section 432;'.
	Amendment 98, page 69, line 40, after 'court', insert 'or Crown Court'.
	Amendment 99, page 70, line 5, after 'court', insert 'or Crown Court'.
	Amendment 100, page 70, line 10, at end insert—
	'(4A) If the magistrates' court has made a direction under subsection (2)(a) or (3) in respect of the proceeds of realisation of any property, the Crown Court may not make a direction under either of those provisions in respect of the proceeds of realisation of that property; and vice versa.'.
	Amendment 101, page 70, line 17, at end insert—
	'(3A) In section 203(3)(b) (payment of sums received by chief clerk under section 202 or otherwise: insolvency practitioners' expenses) after "section 202(2)(a)" insert "or 215D(2)(za)".'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 69
	 — 
	Return from category 1 territory

Amendments made: 102, page 81, line 37, leave out from 'time,' to end of line 39 and insert
	'subsections (6A) to (6D) apply in relation to the person ("the offender").'.
	Amendment 103, page 81, line 39, at end insert—
	'(6A) The offender is liable to be detained, on return, in any place in which the offender could have been detained pursuant to the sentence before the time of extradition.
	(6B) A constable or immigration officer may—
	(a) take the offender into custody, and
	(b) convey the offender to the place mentioned in subsection (6A).
	(6C) The offender must be released on licence within the period of 5 days beginning when the offender is taken (or retaken) into custody under this section.
	(6D) In calculating a period of 5 days for the purposes of subsection (6C) no account is to be taken of—
	(a) any Saturday or Sunday,
	(b) Christmas Day,
	(c) Good Friday, or
	(d) in any part of the United Kingdom, any day that is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in that part of the United Kingdom.'.
	Amendment 104, page 82, line 8, at end insert—
	'(7A) The powers conferred on a constable by subsection (6B) are exercisable in any part of the United Kingdom.'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 70
	 — 
	Return from category 2 territory

Amendments made: 105, page 83, line 1, leave out from 'time,' to end of line 3 and insert
	'subsections (6A) to (6D) apply in relation to the person ("the offender").'.
	Amendment 106, page 83, line 3, at end insert—
	'(6A) The offender is liable to be detained, on return, in any place in which the offender could have been detained pursuant to the sentence before the time of extradition.
	(6B) A constable or immigration officer may—
	(a) take the offender into custody, and
	(b) convey the offender to the place mentioned in subsection (6A).
	(6C) The offender must be released on licence within the period of 5 days beginning when the offender is taken (or retaken) into custody under this section.
	(6D) In calculating a period of 5 days for the purposes of subsection (6C) no account is to be taken of any day mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 59(6D).'
	Amendment 107, page 83, line 18, at end insert—
	'(7A) The powers conferred on a constable by subsection (6B) are exercisable in any part of the United Kingdom.'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Clause 71
	 — 
	Return to extraditing territory etc

Amendments made: 108, page 85, line 4, leave out from 'time,' to end of line 6 and insert
	'subsections (4A) to (4D) apply in relation to the person ("the offender").'.
	Amendment 109, page 85, line 6, at end insert—
	'(4A) The offender is liable to be detained, on return to the United Kingdom, in any place in which the offender could have been detained pursuant to the sentence before the time of return to the territory.
	(4B) A constable or immigration officer may—
	(a) take the offender into custody, and
	(b) convey the offender to the place mentioned in subsection (4A).
	(4C) The offender must be released on licence within the period of 5 days beginning when the offender is taken (or retaken) into custody under this section.
	(4D) In calculating a period of 5 days for the purposes of subsection (4C) no account is to be taken of any day mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 59(6D).
	(4E) The powers conferred on a constable by subsection (4B) are exercisable in any part of the United Kingdom.'.
	Amendment 110, page 86, line 21, at end insert
	'or with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention.'.
	Amendment 111, page 86, line 27, after 'sheriff.', insert—
	'(3) The reference in subsection (1) to the Refugee Convention is to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 and the Protocol to the Convention.'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Schedule 7
	 — 
	Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 120, page 170, line 2, leave out 'in particular localities' and insert 'to existing licences'.
	Amendment 121, page 170, line 8, leave out 'in particular localities' and insert 'to existing licences'.
	Amendment 122, page 170, line 13, leave out 'in particular localities' and insert 'to existing licences'.
	Amendment 123, page 170, line 15, leave out paragraph 33 and insert—
	'33 (1) Section 57 (duty to keep and produce licence) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the heading after "licence" insert "etc.".
	(3) In subsection (2) for "is" substitute "and a list of any relevant general conditions applicable to the licence are".
	(4) In subsection (5)—
	(a) after "it)" insert "or a list of relevant general conditions", and
	(b) after "copy)" insert "or the list".
	(5) In subsection (7) after "of a premises licence" insert "or a list of relevant general conditions".
	(6) After subsection (10) insert—
	"(11) In this section "relevant general conditions", in relation to a premises licence, means conditions applicable to the licence by virtue of section 19(4), 19A or 21A."'.
	Amendment 124, page 170, line 29, leave out 'in particular localities' and insert 'to existing certificates'.
	Amendment 125, page 170, line 36, leave out 'in particular localities' and insert 'to existing certificates'.
	Amendment 126, page 170, line 38, leave out paragraph 38 and insert—
	'38 (1) Section 94 (duty to keep and produce certificate) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the heading after "certificate" insert "etc.".
	(3) In subsection (2) for "is" substitute "and a list of any relevant general conditions applicable to the certificate are".
	(4) In subsection (7) after "copy)" insert "or any list of relevant general conditions".
	(5) In subsection (9) after "of a club premises certificate" insert "or a list of relevant general conditions".
	(6) After subsection (12) insert—
	"(13) In this section "relevant general conditions", in relation to a club premises certificate, means conditions applicable to the certificate by virtue of section 73A, 73B or 74A."'.
	Amendment 127, page 170, line 46, leave out 'in particular localities' and insert 'to existing licences'.
	Amendment 128, page 171, line 14, at end insert—
	 'Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/228 (N.I. 8))
	(7) Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (proceedings for which legal aid may be given under Article 9) is amended as follows.
	(8) In paragraph 2A(1) (certain proceedings in Crown Court) after paragraph (c) insert—
	"(ca) proceedings which relate to a direction under section 215D;".
	(9) In paragraph 3 (proceedings in a court of summary jurisdiction)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (j) after "sections" insert "195M,", and
	(b) after that sub-paragraph insert—
	"(ja) proceedings for the discharge or variation of an order under section 195M of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
	(jb) proceedings which relate to a direction under section 215D of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;".'.
	Amendment 129, page 171, line 14, at end insert—
	 'Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66) The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 is amended as follows.Section 7(1) (meaning of apparent insolvency)—
	(a) in paragraph (b) after "restraint order" insert ", detained under or by virtue of a relevant detention power", and
	(b) after the definition of "charging order" insert—
	""relevant detention power" means section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;".
	(1) Section 31A (property subject to restraint order) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) in paragraph (b) for "section 50, 128 or 198" substitute "section 50, 67A, 128, 131A, 198 or 215A", and
	(b) after paragraph (c) insert ", and
	(d) immediately after the discharge of the restraint order the property is not detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 122A, 127J, 193A or 195J of that Act."
	(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) The property vests in the trustee as part of the debtor's estate."
	After section 31A insert—
	"31AA Property released from detention
	(1) This section applies where—
	(a) property is excluded from the debtor's estate by virtue of section 420(2)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property detained under certain provisions),
	(b) no order is in force in respect of the property under section 41, 50, 120, 128, 190 or 198 of that Act, and
	(c) the property is released.
	(2) The property vests in the trustee as part of the debtor's estate."
	In section 31B(1)(a) (property in respect of which receivership or administration order is made) for "section 420(2)(b), (c) or (d)" substitute "section 420(2)(c)".After section 31B insert—
	"31BA Property in respect of which realisation order made
	(1) This section applies where—
	(a) property is excluded from the debtor's estate by virtue of section 420(2)(d) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property in respect of which an order has been made authorising realisation of the property by an appropriate officer),
	(b) a confiscation order is made under section 6, 92 or 156 of that Act,
	(c) the amount payable under the confiscation order is fully paid, and
	(d) any of the property remains in the hands of the appropriate officer.
	(2) The property vests in the trustee as part of the debtor's estate."
	(1) Section 31C (property subject to certain orders where confiscation order discharged or quashed) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(a) for the words from "in respect" to "force" substitute "excluded from debtor's estate".
	(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) Any such property vests in the trustee as part of the debtor's estate if it is in the hands of—
	(a) a receiver appointed under Part 2 or 4 of that Act,
	(b) an administrator appointed under Part 3 of that Act,
	(c) an appropriate officer (within the meaning of section 41A, 120A or 190A of that Act)."
	 Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45)The Insolvency Act 1986 is amended as follows.
	(1) Section 306A (property subject to restraint order) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) in paragraph (b) for "section 50, 128 or 198" substitute "section 50, 67A, 128, 131A, 198 or 215A", and
	(b) after paragraph (c) insert ", and
	(d) immediately after the discharge of the restraint order the property is not detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 122A, 127J, 193A or 195J of that Act."
	(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) The property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate."
	After section 306A insert—
	"306AA Property released from detention
	(1) This section applies where—
	(a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 417(2)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property detained under certain provisions),
	(b) no order is in force in respect of the property under section 41, 50, 120, 128, 190 or 198 of that Act, and
	(c) the property is released.
	(2) The property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate."
	In section 306B(1)(a) (property in respect of which receivership or administration order is made) for "section 417(2)(b), (c) or (d)" substitute "section 417(2)(c)".After section 306B insert—
	"306BA Property in respect of which realisation order made
	(1) This section applies where—
	(a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 417(2)(d) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property in respect of which an order has been made authorising realisation of the property by an appropriate officer),
	(b) a confiscation order is made under section 6, 92 or 156 of that Act,
	(c) the amount payable under the confiscation order is fully paid, and
	(d) any of the property remains in the hands of the appropriate officer.
	(2) The property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate."
	(1) Section 306C (property subject to certain orders where confiscation order discharged or quashed) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(a) for the words from "in respect" to "force" substitute "excluded from bankrupt's estate".
	(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) Any such property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate if it is in the hands of—
	(a) a receiver appointed under Part 2 or 4 of that Act,
	(b) an administrator appointed under Part 3 of that Act,
	(c) an appropriate officer (within the meaning of section 41A, 120A or 190A of that Act)."
	 Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2405 (N.I. 19))The Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 is amended as follows.
	(1) Article 279A (property subject to restraint order) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (b) for "section 50, 128 or 198" substitute "section 50, 67A, 128, 131A, 198 or 215A", and
	(b) after sub-paragraph (c) insert ", and
	(d) immediately after the discharge of the restraint order the property is not detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 122A, 127J, 193A or 195J of that Act."
	(3) For paragraph (2) substitute—
	"(2) The property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate."
	After Article 279A insert—
	"279AA Property released from detention
	(1) This Article applies where—
	(a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 423(2)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property detained under certain provisions),
	(b) no order is in force in respect of the property under section 41, 50, 120, 128, 190 or 198 of that Act, and
	(c) the property is released.
	(2) The property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate."
	In Article 279B(1)(a) (property in respect of which receivership or administration order is made) for "section 423(2)(b), (c) or (d)" substitute "section 423(2)(c)".After Article 279B insert—
	"279BA Property in respect of which realisation order made
	(1) This Article applies where—
	(a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 423(2)(d) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property in respect of which an order has been made authorising realisation of the property by an appropriate officer),
	(b) a confiscation order is made under section 6, 92 or 156 of that Act,
	(c) the amount payable under the confiscation order is fully paid, and
	(d) any of the property remains in the hands of the appropriate officer.
	(2) The property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate."
	(1) Article 279C (property subject to certain orders where confiscation order discharged or quashed) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1)(a) for the words from "in respect" to "force" substitute "excluded from the bankrupt's estate".
	(3) For paragraph (2) substitute—
	"(2) Any such property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate if it is in the hands of—
	(a) a receiver appointed under Part 2 or 4 of that Act,
	(b) an administrator appointed under Part 3 of that Act,
	(c) an appropriate officer (within the meaning of section 41A, 120A or 190A of that Act)."'.
	Amendment 130, page 171, line 41, at end insert—
	'In section 85 (proceedings: England and Wales) for subsection (7) substitute—
	"(7) Any power to extend the time for giving notice of application for leave to appeal, or for applying for leave to appeal, must be ignored for the purposes of subsection (6)."
	In section 87(2) (definition of confiscation order subject to appeal: England and Wales) omit the words from "; and for" to the end. After section 87 insert—
	"87A No further possibility of appeal
	(1) The following rule applies for the purposes of construing any provision of this Part which refers to there being no further possibility of—
	(a) an appeal against a decision of a court, or
	(b) an appeal on which an order of a court could be varied or quashed.
	(2) Any power to extend the time for giving notice of application for leave to appeal, or for applying for leave to appeal, must be ignored."'.
	Amendment 131, page 172, line 2, at end insert—
	'In section 153(2) (definition of confiscation order subject to appeal: Scotland) omit the words from "; and for" to the end.After section 153 insert—
	"153A No further possibility of appeal
	(1) The following rule applies for the purposes of construing any provision of this Part which refers to there being no further possibility of—
	(a) an appeal against (or review of) a decision of a court, or
	(b) an appeal on which an order of a court could be varied or quashed.
	(2) Any power—
	(a) to allow an appeal (or review) out of time, or
	(b) to extend the time for applying for leave to appeal,
	must be ignored."'.
	Amendment 132, page 172, line 4, at end insert—
	'In section 233 (proceedings: Northern Ireland) for subsection (7) substitute—
	"(7) Any power to extend the time for giving notice of application for leave to appeal, or for applying for leave to appeal, must be ignored for the purposes of subsection (6)."
	In section 235(2) (definition of confiscation order subject to appeal: Northern Ireland) omit the words from "; and for" to the end.After section 235 insert—
	"235A No further possibility of appeal
	(1) The following rule applies for the purposes of construing any provision of this Part which refers to there being no further possibility of—
	(a) an appeal against a decision of a court, or
	(b) an appeal on which an order of a court could be varied or quashed.
	(2) Any power to extend the time for giving notice of application for leave to appeal, or for applying for leave to appeal, must be ignored."'.
	Amendment 133, page 172, line 5, leave out paragraph 46 and insert—
	'In section 308 (recoverable property: exceptions) after subsection (8) insert—
	"(8A) Property is not recoverable while it is detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P."
	In section 417 (property excluded from estate of person adjudged bankrupt in England and Wales) for subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) The following property is excluded from the person's estate for the purposes of Part 9 of the 1986 Act—
	(a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order which was made under section 41, 120 or 190 before the order adjudging the person bankrupt;
	(b) property for the time being detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P;
	(c) property in respect of which an order under section 50, 128(3) or 198 is in force;
	(d) property in respect of which an order under section 67A, 131A or 215A is in force."
	(1) Section 418 (restriction of powers where person adjudged bankrupt in England and Wales) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for "67" substitute "67B, the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 47C",
	(b) in paragraph (b) after "Schedule 3" insert ", the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 127C", and
	(c) in paragraph (c) for "215" substitute "215B, the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 195C".
	(3) In subsection (3) after paragraph (e) insert—
	"(f) in a case where a confiscation order has been made under section 6, 92 or 156 of this Act, any sums remaining in the hands of an appropriate officer after the amount required to be paid under the confiscation order has been fully paid under section 67D(2)(b), 131D(2)(b) or 215D(2)(b)."
	(1) Section 419 (tainted gifts by person adjudged bankrupt in England and Wales) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)—
	(a) after paragraph (a) insert—
	"(aa) such property is detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P,", and
	(b) after paragraph (b) insert ", or
	(c) there is in force in respect of such property an order under section 67A, 131A or 215A."
	(3) In subsection (3) for "subsection (2)(a) or (b)" substitute "subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c)".
	In section 420 (property excluded from the debtor's estate where sequestration in Scotland) for subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) The following property is excluded from the debtor's estate for the purposes of the 1985 Act—
	(a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order which was made under section 41, 120 or 190 before the award of sequestration;
	(b) property for the time being detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P;
	(c) property in respect of which an order under section 50, 128(3) or 198 is in force;
	(d) property in respect of which an order under section 67A, 131A or 215A is in force."
	(1) Section 421 (restriction of powers where award of sequestration) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for "67" substitute "67B, the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 47C",
	(b) in paragraph (b) after "Schedule 3" insert ", the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 127C", and
	(c) in paragraph (c) for "215" substitute "215B, the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 195C".
	(3) In subsection (3) after paragraph (e) insert—
	"(f) in a case where a confiscation order has been made under section 6, 92 or 156 of this Act, any sums remaining in the hands of an appropriate officer after the amount required to be paid under the confiscation order has been fully paid under section 67D(2)(b), 131D(2)(b) or 215D(2)(b)."
	(1) Section 422 (tainted gifts by person whose estate is sequestrated in Scotland) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)—
	(a) after paragraph (a) insert—
	"(aa) such property is detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P,", and
	(b) after paragraph (b) insert ", or
	(c) there is in force in respect of such property an order under section 67A, 131A or 215A."
	(3) In subsection (3) for "subsection (2)(a) or (b)" substitute "subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c)".
	In section 423 (property excluded from estate of person adjudged bankrupt in Northern Ireland) for subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) The following property is excluded from the person's estate for the purposes of Part 9 of the 1989 Order—
	(a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order which was made under section 41, 120 or 190 before the order adjudging the person bankrupt;
	(b) property for the time being detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P;
	(c) property in respect of which an order under section 50, 128(3) or 198 is in force;
	(d) property in respect of which an order under section 67A, 131A or 215A is in force."
	(1) Section 424 (restriction of powers where person adjudged bankrupt in Northern Ireland) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for "67" substitute "67B, the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 47C",
	(b) in paragraph (b) after "Schedule 3" insert ", the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 127C", and
	(c) in paragraph (c) for "215" substitute "215B, the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 195C".
	(3) In subsection (3) after paragraph (e) insert—
	"(f) in a case where a confiscation order has been made under section 6, 92 or 156 of this Act, any sums remaining in the hands of an appropriate officer after the amount required to be paid under the confiscation order has been fully paid under section 67D(2)(b), 131D(2)(b) or 215D(2)(b)."
	(1) Section 425 (tainted gifts by person who is adjudged bankrupt in Northern Ireland) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)—
	(a) after paragraph (a) insert—
	"(aa) such property is detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P,", and
	(b) after paragraph (b) insert ", or
	(c) there is in force in respect of such property an order under section 67A, 131A or 215A."
	(3) In subsection (3) for "subsection (2)(a) or (b)" substitute "subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c)".
	(1) Section 426 (winding up under the Insolvency Act 1986) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) If an order for the winding up of a company is made or it passes a resolution for its voluntary winding up, the functions of the liquidator (or any provisional liquidator) are not exercisable in relation to the following property—
	(a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order which was made under section 41, 120 or 190 before the relevant time;
	(b) property for the time being detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P;
	(c) property in respect of which an order under section 50, 128(3) or 198 is in force;
	(d) property in respect of which an order under section 67A, 131A or 215A is in force."
	(3) In subsection (5)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for "67" substitute "67B, the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 47C",
	(b) in paragraph (b) after "Schedule 3" insert ", the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 127C", and
	(c) in paragraph (c) for "215" substitute "215B, the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 195C".
	(1) Section 427 (tainted gifts by company: winding up in England and Wales or Scotland) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3)—
	(a) after paragraph (a) insert—
	"(aa) such property is detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P,", and
	(b) after paragraph (b) insert ", or
	(c) there is in force in respect of such property an order under section 67A, 131A or 215A."
	(3) In subsection (4) for "subsection (3)(a) or (b)" substitute "subsection (3)(a), (b) or (c)".
	(1) Section 428 (winding up under the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) If an order for the winding up of a company is made or it passes a resolution for its voluntary winding up, the functions of the liquidator (or any provisional liquidator) are not exercisable in relation to the following property—
	(a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order which was made under section 41, 120 or 190 before the relevant time;
	(b) property for the time being detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P;
	(c) property in respect of which an order under section 50, 128(3) or 198 is in force;
	(d) property in respect of which an order under section 67A, 131A or 215A is in force."
	(3) In subsection (5)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for "67" substitute "67B, the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 47C",
	(b) in paragraph (b) after "Schedule 3" insert ", the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 127C", and
	(c) in paragraph (c) for "215" substitute "215B, the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 195C".
	(1) Section 429 (tainted gifts by company: winding up in Northern Ireland) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3)—
	(a) after paragraph (a) insert—
	"(aa) such property is detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P,", and
	(b) after paragraph (b) insert ", or
	(c) there is in force in respect of such property an order under section 67A, 131A or 215A."
	(3) In subsection (4) for "subsection (3)(a) or (b)" substitute "subsection (3)(a), (b) or (c)".
	(1) Section 430 (restriction of powers where company holds property subject to floating charge) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) If a company holds property which is subject to a floating charge, and a receiver has been appointed by or on the application of the holder of the charge, the functions of the receiver are not exercisable in relation to the following property—
	(a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order which was made under section 41, 120 or 190 before the relevant time;
	(b) property for the time being detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P;
	(c) property in respect of which an order under section 50, 128(3) or 198 is in force;
	(d) property in respect of which an order under section 67A, 131A or 215A is in force."
	(3) In subsection (5)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for "67" substitute "67B, the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 47C",
	(b) in paragraph (b) after "Schedule 3" insert ", the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 127C", and
	(c) in paragraph (c) for "215" substitute "215B, the powers conferred on an appropriate officer by section 195C".
	(1) Section 432 (insolvency practitioners) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (6) insert—
	"(6A) Subsection (7) also applies if—
	(a) property is detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M, 47P, 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M, 127P, 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P,
	(b) a person acting as an insolvency practitioner incurs expenses which are not ones in respect of the detained property, and
	(c) the expenses are ones which (but for the effect of the detention of the property) might have been met by taking possession of and realising the property."
	(3) For subsection (7) substitute—
	"(7) Whether or not the insolvency practitioner has seized or disposed of any property, the insolvency practitioner is entitled to payment of the expenses under—
	(a) section 54(2), 55(3) or 67D(2) if the restraint order was made under section 41 or (as the case may be) the property was detained under or by virtue of section 44A, 47J, 47K, 47M or 47P,
	(b) section 130(3), 131(3) or 131D(2) if the restraint order was made under section 120 or (as the case may be) the property was detained under or by virtue of section 122A, 127J, 127K, 127M or 127P, and
	(c) section 202(2), 203(3) or 215D(2) if the restraint order was made under section 190 or (as the case may be) the property was detained under or by virtue of section 193A, 195J, 195K, 195M or 195P."'.
	Amendment 134, page 172, line 21, at end insert—
	 'Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10))
	(1) Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (civil legal services: excluded services) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 2(d) (proceedings in a court of summary jurisdiction in which representation may be funded)—
	(a) in paragraph (xii) after "section" insert "195M,", and
	(b) after paragraph (xiii) insert—
	"(xiv) for the discharge or variation of an order under section 195M of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, or
	(xiv) which relate to a direction under section 215D of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002,".
	(3) In paragraph 3 (certain Crown Court proceedings in which representation may be funded) after paragraph (c) insert—
	"(ca) proceedings which relate to a direction under section 215D;".'.
	Amendment 135, page 172, line 23, at end insert—
	 'Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/228 (N.I. 8))In paragraph 3(j) of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (proceedings in a court of summary jurisdiction in respect of which legal aid may be given under Article 9) after "295, 297," insert "297E, 297F,".'.
	Amendment 136, page 175, line 10, at end insert—
	 'Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10))In paragraph 2(d)(xii) of Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (civil legal services: proceedings in a court of summary jurisdiction in which representation may be funded) after "295, 297," insert "297E, 297F,".'.— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)

Schedule 8
	 — 
	Repeals and revocations

Amendments made: 137, page 181, line 3, at end insert—
	
		
			 'Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66) In section 31A(1), the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b). 
			 Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45) In section 306A(1), the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b). 
			 Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/3405 (N.I. 19)) In Article 279A(1), the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (b).'. 
		
	
	Amendment 138, page 181, line 12, at end insert—
	
		
			  'In section 419(2), the word "or" at the end of paragraph (a). 
			  In section 422(2), the word "or" at the end of paragraph (a). 
			  In section 427(3), the word "or" at the end of paragraph (a). 
			  In section 429(3), the word "or" at the end of paragraph (a).'. 
		
	
	Amendment 139, page 181, line 12, at end insert—
	
		
			 'Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10)) In Schedule 2, the word"or" at the end of paragraph 2(d)(xii).'. 
		
	
	Amendment 140, page 181, line 13, at end insert—
	
		
			  'In Schedule 8, paragraphs 150, 151 and 154.'. 
		
	
	Amendment 141, page 182, line 7, at end insert—
	
		
			  'Section 30.'. 
		
	
	— (Mr. Alan Campbell.)
	 Third Reading.

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Protecting the public, tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, and ensuring an effective but responsive police force are key issues for the people whom we serve. I therefore welcome the positive and constructive manner in which the Bill has been addressed during its passage. There have been lively debates, not just today, but in Committee, and I would like to put on record my thanks to my ministerial colleagues— my hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick). I also thank the Whips and the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who worked so hard in Committee, and the civil service team, who also approached the issues with energy and commitment.
	Opposition Members, too, have been willing to support much. That constructive approach has helped us find consensus on several issues, and I believe that the Bill is the better for it.
	Crime has fallen, and continues to fall, in this country. That is due in no small part to the hard work and expertise of our police force. Locally, nationally and internationally, the Government's increased investment in policing is being used to good effect and felt in every community. However, in every community people also need to be able to have their say about what the police should focus on locally, and hear how their concerns have been addressed.
	The Bill, alongside monthly crime information meetings, will ensure that that happens around the country. The measure has also ensured that local people can have a say when lap-dancing clubs are proposed.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how the public might have a say on whether a temporary event notice is granted for a lap-dancing event? Will she consider enabling local people to have a say, not only through their councillors but perhaps, for example, a by means of a community call to action, to push the council in a particular direction?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) have assiduously pushed that point. As we have already said today, there may well be an opportunity in proposals that are now being considered—not least those of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—for a greater role for councillors in lobbying, particularly against temporary event notices. I can certainly give her a commitment that we will continue to consider, as the Bill progresses in another place, how we can ensure that the public have a meaningful say, even when temporary event notices have led to an exemption.
	We expect much of our police, so we must ensure that they have the tools to keep us safe, to catch the guilty and to clear the innocent. That includes our world-leading use of DNA. Some have argued today that we should delay making the proposed changes. I do not believe that we should. Following the consultation, we will be in a position to move quickly, not only to meet our commitment to the European Court, but to ensure a fair, balanced and proportionate response to the difficulties of balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of society to protect itself from murderers, rapists and other criminals.
	As the Bill has progressed through this House, I have been pleased that we have acted quickly in providing for new powers to control gang members. I have seen the good work of the police and their partners in places such as Birmingham in using every method that they can to protect their communities from gang violence. We owe it to them to find a way through difficult legal territory, as we are doing in this Bill. With stronger powers to tackle problem drinking and new powers to deal with sex offenders, we are learning from what has worked in tackling antisocial behaviour and protecting the vulnerable, and building on that where needed.
	However, in some areas of the Bill we are taking a radical new approach, setting a new path to tackle social issues that have been the subject of debate for years, if not centuries. As we have heard today, prostitution can not only blight communities, but be a terrible trap for the most vulnerable in our society. That is why the Bill contains provisions to tackle the most exploitative elements of prostitution. Placing a new responsibility on those who pay for sex is a radical shift in policy in this country. It is vital that we get it right, and that is why we have undertaken today to continue our discussions, including those in another place, on how we get the definition right.

Bob Spink: I congratulate the Home Secretary on pressing on with the strict liability offence. The whole country will agree with the Government that women and children who are vulnerable need and deserve protection much more than do the men who would use and abuse them.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The most important point to bear in mind is that some of those women do not have a choice. The people who use the services of prostitutes do have a choice, so my argument is simple. Those with the choice need to think carefully about the consequences of their actions, and where their actions lead to exploitation, they must face the consequences of that.
	I have been encouraged by our debate, not just today but throughout the Committee stage. It has been wide-ranging and there have been important amendments along the way. Delivering practical legislation with practical applications will help protect the people whom we serve. This Bill will help us to build stronger, safer and more confident communities, and I commend it to the House.

Chris Grayling: Let me start my remarks by echoing the Home Secretary's words of thanks to those who served on the Committee and those who have been involved in steering the Bill through the House. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), as well as our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for the work that they have done in scrutinising the Government's proposals.
	For all the Home Secretary's enthusiasm for the Bill, it reeks of a decaying Government. Instead of a systematic approach to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, we are left with a sort of closing-down sale of everything that the right hon. Lady found at the back of the Home Office policy cupboard. The Bill contains a whole series of missed opportunities. Where we could have had a fresh approach to gang crime, we have a hotch-potch of measures, some of which do not even apply to people under the age of 18. Where we could have had measures to make crime statistics believable by making them independent, we have a blank space. Where we could have had a review of the problems with our 24-hour drinking laws, we have a code. Where we could have secured an absolute preservation of the principle of innocent until proven guilty, we will still have people's DNA held for many years, even though they have committed no crime, and perhaps not even been charged with any crime.
	Moreover, there are a number of measures on which, had the Home Secretary been sufficiently bold, we would have supported her. We would have welcomed detailed measures to cut police red tape and get officers back on the beat. We would also have welcomed proposals for directly elected police commissioners. The reason why we would have welcomed those measures is that the Government have continued to fail on crime. Where they promised to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, they have actually been soft on crime. Their legislative hyperactivity has been an alibi for their failure to get at the roots of crime in Britain today.
	I shall turn to the specifics of the Bill. It could and should have been an opportunity for the Government to do the right thing and preserve absolutely the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but they have not done that. Ministers are still trying to get away with doing as little as they possibly can, instead of taking real action to remove innocent people from the DNA database. The indefinite retention on the national database of the DNA of people who have never been charged with any crime, or have been acquitted by a court, is unacceptable in a society founded on the basis that someone is innocent until proven guilty.
	Under the national DNA database as currently constituted, however, that presumption is reversed. A person is always regarded as potentially guilty unless shown to be innocent. Everyone is a potential suspect. Instead of thinking through the DNA issue before the Bill came to the House, the Government sought a legislative blank cheque, so that once they had finally made up their minds following their consultation they could do what they liked, with little parliamentary scrutiny. We retain significant misgivings about the approach that they are taking and the length of time involved. We do not share their views on this matter. In government, we would follow a system based on the Scottish model, and we believe that the present Government should do the same.
	Another missed opportunity in the Bill concerns people's use of alcohol. When 24-hour drinking was introduced, we were promised a continental café culture. We have certainly ended up with drinking in the street, but not quite in the way we imagined. There are still too many things wrong with our licensing system. In particular, we need stronger powers to ensure that retailers who systematically break licensing laws are closed, permanently. Those powers need to be simple and they need to be quick. We cannot allow the culture of public binge drinking and the resulting public nuisance to continue unchallenged.
	Back in the days when the content of the Bill was merely a Green Paper, the Government trumpeted their plans for more democracy in the governance of policing. To quote them directly:
	"The Government believe that Crime and Policing Representatives will provide clear and transparent governance structures that will simplify the system so the public can readily understand how to influence their policing and will be able to do so."
	They also noted that the Association of Police Authorities' own polling showed that 55 per cent. actively supported that policy and only 19 per cent. disagreed with it. Sadly, however, that proposal has gone. It has disappeared, and it will be left to a future Conservative Government to bring to local communities the accountability on policing that the Government promised but failed to deliver.
	Perhaps the Government's biggest mistake has been to tie the hands of police officers with targets and bureaucracy. The Bill could have been a real opportunity to get to grips with the byzantine bureaucracy that keeps the police off the streets. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has advanced a comprehensive programme for freeing up the police and getting them back on the beat. The Government could have used the Bill to look at ways of changing the hugely time-consuming disclosure process that takes up so much time in our police stations. The Bill could also have abolished statutory charging for more offences, which would have given back to custody sergeants the power to charge offenders so that they no longer had to fill in forms seeking approval from the Crown Prosecution Service. The Bill could have cut the unnecessary requirements imposed on police to fill in regulation of investigatory powers forms before conducting routine police surveillance and investigations. Instead, as a consequence of this Bill, the police will spend little more time on the beat than they do at the moment.
	The Government could also have used the Bill to get to grips with antisocial behaviour. The number of young people entering the criminal justice system has gone up by a fifth in five years. In 2007-08 more than 93,000 youngsters aged 10 to 17 received their first caution or conviction, up from 78,000 five years ago. At the moment the tools given to the police by this Government have proved largely ineffective. Just about the only power in the Bill that is designed to deal with antisocial behaviour will mean that the police can move on 10-year-olds if they are causing trouble in the evenings. I do not think we should be shifting 10-year-olds out of their home areas; I think we should be sending them home to bed.
	The Bill is the product of a tired Government who are scratching around for ideas. They have already run out of ideas, and very soon they will run out of road. It is time for a change.

Christopher Huhne: This is a mixed bag of a Bill. We have seen it passing like the proverbial bus, loaded with the various parcels that the Government have seen fit to put on it. We certainly welcome some of its provisions, including those on the extension of foreign travel orders for sex offenders, which seem proportionate and sensible. We support the Government on that issue. New clause 22, which amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in relation to penalties for encrypted data involving indecent images of children, is also to be welcomed as useful for tackling the terrible crime of child pornography. The new sex encounter establishment licensing regime is also a useful development that we welcome. It will allow lap-dancing premises to be considered as such for licensing purposes, which will allow local authorities to make decisions based on their own situations, which we very much welcome.
	Against the positive aspects of this portmanteau Bill, however, we must set a number of real problems. The Government are proposing to address the S and Marper judgment on the DNA database in the wrong way and by using the wrong principles. They are the wrong principles because the proposal they have brought forward seriously questions the long-standing commitment of our judicial system to the principle that everyone should be presumed innocent until they are proven to be guilty; and it is the wrong way because the Government propose to use secondary legislation—statutory instruments—for a change that is of such significance and controversy that it should be properly debated on the Floor of the House and implemented through primary legislation. The precedent is provided in the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008, which was a response to another court judgment. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to go ahead in the manner they are suggesting.
	There are also missed opportunities in the Bill, particularly on police reform. My party has long been committed to putting more police on the beat and to an increase in police officers. We are still an under-policed society, in comparison with other western democracies, but even more importantly, we are a society for which policing could be much more effective than it is. The discrepancies between the best performing and the worst performing police forces are enormous, yet there is no suggestion in the Bill to allow police authorities to pressure forces that are underperforming to reach best practice.
	We need real police reform and a move towards real local accountability—not elected sheriffs, on the model proposed by the Conservative Front-Bench team, because that would not adequately represent minorities in important parts of the country. If we are going to get better policing, what we need are directly elected and accountable police authorities. Yes, there is a cross-party consensus on dealing with the issue of police bureaucracy, but let us not disguise the fact that there is a massive difference, for example, between the effectiveness of the best performing police force in North Yorkshire, with a 67 per cent. clear-up rate of violent crime, and the 36 per cent. for the Metropolitan police. We have to find ways of improving police performance towards best practice. That, I am afraid, is a opportunity missed in the Bill.
	I believe that the measures personally championed by the Home Secretary on sex offences and prostitution are misguided. They are misguided because they introduce something that the House should always set its face against: a strict liability offence. There are many basic principles of legislation that we abandon at our peril. One is obviously retrospection, but another is the strict liability offence. The reason is simply that people do not know when they are committing a strict liability offence; and if they do not know, anybody deciding whether that offence has been committed—whether it be a magistrate or a more serious court—will regard the offence as unfair.
	What we always see with strict liability offences of the sort in the Bill is that the penalties are absolutely puny. Why? It is precisely because of the unfairness of the original offence. That is why I very much hope that when the other place considers our deliberation on the Bill and reflects on how it has been hammered through this Chamber with many parts completely unconsidered, it will amend it and do its absolute worst.
	What we have seen is a Bill that has some good elements, but others that are frankly against many of the fundamental principles that this House ought to hold dear. We have heard all the usual tough talk, rather than tough action, from the Government about tackling crime, and we have seen a failure to get to grips with some of the real problems of fighting crime in this country—notably, police reform and police accountability. I very much hope that our colleagues in the other place will look at the record of our deliberations—outrageously truncated as they have been by the timetable motion pushed through earlier today—and then very substantially amend the provisions. On that basis, we will not press for a Division, but we will hope for a very substantial degree of amendment in the other place.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 4, 5 and 6 together.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Climate Change

That the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (2020 Target, Credit Limit and Definitions) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.
	That the draft Carbon Budgets Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.
	That the draft Carbon Accounting Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 22 April, be approved. —(Steve McCabe.)
	 Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Traffic Noise (M6)

David Kidney: Young James Morgan and his mum came to see me to ask for relief from the constant noise that they and all their neighbours endure from traffic on the M6 motorway, which runs past their home. I have asked the Highways Agency to make a number of changes to help them, but have been given no firm commitment to action.
	The Petition of residents of the Borough of Stafford, and others,
	Declares that noise from traffic on the M6 motorway in the section between junctions 13 and 14 is unacceptably high especially for residents who live near the motorway and that the carriageway of this section of the motorway is therefore in need of replacement.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to make early arrangements for a programme of works to refurbish the section of the M6 motorway between junctions 13 and 14 to include replacing the existing carriageway surface with a modern noise-reducing surface.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000369]

WATER CHARGING (SOUTH-WEST)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Steve McCabe.)

Hugo Swire: This is one of those extraordinary occasions on which, when we talk about the south-west, the evidence that the south-west has been abandoned by the present Government is clear because no Minister is present to listen to what I am about to say, let alone respond to it. That must mean that, in the extraordinary circumstances in which we find ourselves, Ministers are simply not interested in what is going on in the south-west.
	Water and sewerage services are a fundamental household necessity which we too often take for granted. Unlike those in much of the developing world, we in this country are lucky enough to find it unimaginable to be without running drinking water and flushing lavatories. That privilege must, of course, be paid for, but in a manner that is both just and fair. The initial purpose of privatisation back in 1989 was to encourage investment, and, indeed, by 2010 the water industry as a whole will have invested £68 billion to improve services and meet higher drinking-water and environmental standards throughout the country. That is surely irrefutable evidence that privatisation has been beneficial, but the investment comes at a price.
	Since privatisation, water and sewerage bills have risen faster than inflation. On average, charges are now 42 per cent. higher in real terms than they were in 1989. It is widely recognised, moreover, that customers of South West Water have been paying disproportionately larger costs than those in any other part of the country. At £497, the current average annual bill in the south-west is more than £150 higher than the average bill throughout England and Wales. That disparity must be addressed immediately.
	Before privatisation South West Water had been suffering from a chronic lack of investment, and little had been done to protect the coastal bathing waters of the south-west. During that period, 40 per cent. of the south-west's waste water was being discharged directly into the sea without any treatment. At that time, it was not uncommon for beaches to be closed. Indeed, in July 1990 pollution signs were erected at Leas Foot beach at Thurlestone in Devon warning swimmers not to go into the sea because of raw sewage. The beach was rated the most polluted in Europe in 1985, when levels of sewage were 16 times the maximum allowed and 3,200 times the recommended level. With the advent of privatisation, a century of under-investment had to come to an end.
	I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to the debate.
	In 1990, the Government adopted higher water quality standards, as imposed by the European Union. The most significant contributory factor to South West Water's high water charges is, therefore, a "statutory driver", or, rather, the requirement to meet European directives relating to bathing water. In 1991, South West Water thus launched the "clean sweep" programme to intercept 250 crude or inadequately treated sewage discharges to the marine environment and to improve one third of the bathing waters in England and Wales while meeting directive compliance. South West Water has invested more than £1.5 billion in the programme over the past 16 years.
	There are 144 designated bathing waters in the South West Water area, which is about one third of the total in England and Wales. Ten years ago, only 51 per cent. of designated bathing waters in the region complied with the EU guideline standard, but following a large amount of work and investment, there has been a dramatic change; so much so that the 2007 "Good Beach Guide" stated that
	"the South West is the top performing region in this year's guide".
	Malcolm Bell, the excellent director of South West Tourism, has also stated:
	"Without Clean Sweep, the tourist industry would have been destroyed."
	According to a South West Tourism survey in 2005, 15 million people visit the south-west each year; this is the highest rate of domestic tourism in the UK. The industry is predicted to grow by 39 per cent. over the next decade, a factor which will inevitably put increasing pressure on the south-west to maintain its beaches and coastline in a pristine state. Twenty years ago, the south-west had a serious problem that it needed to confront: the sea was badly polluted, the region's beaches had a reputation for being dirty, and the area was struggling to attract visitors. Now, as well as the large number of tourists who flock to the south-west each year, the area is host to a number of major surfing events, with surfers from all around the world visiting the region. In addition, Fistral beach at Newquay is set to host the 2010 lifesaving world championships, involving more than 6,000 competitors from 50 countries. To secure an event such as this, it was of very great importance that the water was of the highest quality.
	There is certainly a pride within the region that compliance with mandatory bathing water standards in England has increased steadily from 89.9 per cent. in 1998 to a record level of 99.5 per cent. achieved in 2006, but this pride is often tinged with bitterness and resentment. While visitors from all over the country, if not the world, come to enjoy the now clean seas and beaches of the region, the bill payers of the south-west are forced to pay for it. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable?

Oliver Letwin: As my hon. Friend knows, I, too, have constituents who face such charges. Surely the point is that it is not possible to justify this extra charge for what is really a national responsibility, the cost burden of which should be spread across the nation.

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend shows his commitment to this subject by being present on the evening of his birthday. Without his support, I do not think we would be shifting policy in the direction we want. My right hon. Friend has been a champion of equalisation and fairness for South West Water payers for a long time, and I think he will be pleased with what I have to say.
	Residents and visitors alike are reaping the benefits of almost two decades of environmental investment. That investment, however, has meant customers paying a premium on their water and sewerage bills. The south-west is ringed by 30 per cent. of the nation's bathing beaches yet is inhabited by just 3 per cent. of the population. A small number of people are therefore paying for the cleanliness of what is a national resource. This imposes a significant burden on a small percentage of the population, a large proportion of whom are pensioners living on low fixed incomes. In addition, there are areas of significantly high deprivation. Low wages and high living costs are a characteristic of life in Devon, while Cornwall's economy is the least productive in the UK, and the county has some of the most deprived areas of the country.
	By 2010, it is expected that 12 per cent. of customers nationally will face water and sewerage bills that exceed 3 per cent. of their disposable income before housing costs. In the south-west, however, 30 per cent. of customers will be in that position. Customers with such bills are understandably considered to face affordability problems. How can the Minister justify those shocking figures?
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Mr. Frank Roy.)

Hugo Swire: This year and next year will see South West Water investing yet another £10.5 million in its "clean sweep" project and although the price rises that it has submitted to Ofwat for the forthcoming price review are lower than those of any other company, customers in the south-west will still be paying the highest bills in the country.
	Despite the fact that the flooding of 2008 affected water cleanliness, 97.8 per cent. compliance with the EC water directive's mandatory standards for bathing waters was still achieved. However, this still represents only 79.8 per cent. of the more stringent guideline standards, which indicate excellent bathing water. The Environment Agency expects water companies to progress projects to meet EU directives and has set out a national environmental programme—a programme of actions for environmental improvements that water companies should undertake to meet their environmental obligations. Indeed, in November 2007, the then Minister for the Environment, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), stated:
	"We must go further, to prepare for the more stringent bathing water quality standards which come into effect by 2015."
	Does the Under-Secretary suggest that South West Water prices would increase to achieve that?
	The current bathing water directive will be repealed in 2013 by the EC water framework directive. The cost of delivering the water framework directive is not yet understood, although it is widely anticipated that there will be a need for further major capital investment by water companies both within this coming pricing period and subsequently.
	In addition to compliance with directives, we also must take into consideration changing meteorological circumstances. Climate change is becoming an increasing concern and one that must be taken into account when formulating future policies. During the summer of 2008, large parts of our region had 150 per cent. more rainfall than normal. The rain was also more constant, as opposed to coming in short, intense storms. That meant that the ground was saturated for longer periods, causing more urban run-off and agricultural pollution in streams and rivers. That presented a significant challenge to South West Water in protecting bathing water quality around the peninsula. Residents of the south-west alone cannot be expected to continue to pay for the upkeep of these beaches if maintaining our environment becomes more difficult and more expensive.
	The Government have certainly given some clear indications that they wish to see progress towards a time when all households are metered. Figures from the Environment Agency show that homes in the region with water meters consume as much as 30 litres of water per person per day less than those without meters. Indeed, homes with water meters in the South West Water area pay an average of £397 a year, whereas those without a meter have average bills of £686. More than 60 per cent. of homes and businesses in the South West Water area have their water supply metered, and South West Water has said that 70 per cent. of homes in the region will be on water meters by 2010 and 82 per cent. will be by 2015. Although that may play a part in reducing costs, if those in the south-west continue to have to pay indirectly for ever-more stringent EU directives on bathing water for the enjoyment of others, there will continue to be an injustice. Surely the Minister would agree on that point.
	Ministers gave some hope that this blatant and outrageous inequality would be addressed when they announced the Walker review into water charging earlier last year. The review is examining the current system of charging households for water and sewerage services, assessing the effectiveness and fairness of current and alternative methods of charging while looking at social, economic and environmental concerns. I understand that Anna Walker has said that she is committed to understanding people's concerns over rocketing charges, particularly in the current economic climate. I would hope that she pays particular attention to the south-west, where residents have been facing extortionate charges long before the recession began.
	A ministerial statement that accompanied the Government's new water strategy for England, "Future Water", which announced the review, stated:
	"Over the last two decades we have made great improvements to water quality in the environment."—[ Official Report, 7 February 2008; Vol. 471, c. 80WS.]
	Although that is indeed an achievement, it must not be forgotten that the majority of the burden of achieving that has been borne by the water customers of the south-west.
	In the Walker review's call for evidence document, it is apparent that during consultations the view emerged by a very considerable margin that usage was the fairest way to charge for water. Is that an opinion that the Minister shares or does he believe that it is acceptable for residents of the south-west to pay extra? Many respondents in the south-west resent how much they are paying for their water services. Indeed, the document states:
	"Questions of affordability appear to have been most acute in regions where water bills are relatively high and incomes relatively low, such as the South West and Wales."
	The original review timetable stated that an interim report was due in spring, with a final report to be published later this year. Now, however, owing to the election purdah period, there is no way that even an interim report will appear until after 4 June.
	In November 2009, Ofwat is to finalise the new limits on prices for the period 2010 to 2015. A tight, difficult time scale would be required were Ofwat to be able to take the Walker review into account. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), who has responsibility for farming and the environment, has stated that
	"the Walker review will be significant in informing us how to take forward our policies on metering and charging, so we await Anna Walker's findings with interest."—[ Official Report, 6 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 344.]
	Will the Under-Secretary confirm that Ofwat's pricing review will be able to take the Walker review's findings into account, or will the review simply prove to be a pointless exercise that will offer no substantial help to people in the south-west?
	The consultation process associated with the Walker review has certainly proved useful in that a wide range of opinions on the matter have been heard. In particular, at a water charging review workshop in London on 17 December 2008, there was a feeling that the cost of environmental benefits and requirements should be separated from water charging. If those costs were stripped out, the differences between levels of water charges in different parts of the country would be much less. Does the Minister agree that that would be a more effective and fairer means of water charging?
	I advocate that the west country's popular beaches should be treated as the national asset that they are, paid for by the nation. National assets such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and UNESCO world heritage sites, such as the Jurassic coast in my constituency and that of the my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), benefit UK tourism and the economy while visitors from all over the country benefit from our beautiful beaches and clean water. It is simply wrong that only 3 per cent. of the population should have to pay to maintain that.
	Government intervention is required in order to equitably and effectively address the problem. The Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), has himself criticised that disparity and pledged to take action to address it. While holidaying in north Cornwall last July, he said,
	"I understand the unfairness that people feel in the South West that they are paying a lot of money so that there are clean beaches for people like me from Oxfordshire to come and play on."
	In fact, the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), has confirmed to me personally that such is the importance of the issue that he is urgently looking into redressing it. He has said:
	"In some cases, where big investment decisions need to be made which might impact heavily on one small area but might provide wider benefits, we need to look at the way in which they are financed."
	That, therefore, is exactly what I have been doing.
	The residents of the south-west have paid too high a price for too long and I am proposing a radical new solution that is workable, effective and fair, and whereby environmental standards are maintained, if not improved, but whereby a small number of customers are no longer penalised. Projects that are deemed to be of national importance must not be paid for by one small group of people; instead, that factor must be stripped out of charges. I am proposing an environmental equalisation mechanism that would equably spread the burden of the upkeep of our environment. If the "clean sweep" burden were to be shared equally among all English customers, the South West Water average bill could be reduced by approximately £75 to £379 while customers in other regions would see their bills increase by just a negligible sum.
	At £379, South West Water's charges would be at their lowest level since 2002, in real terms. On the basis of the company's final business plan submission, its bills in 2015 would be the lowest since 1999 in real terms. With such a scheme we will have achieved what the people of the south-west have wanted and deserved for so long, finally solving a problem over which the Government have dithered and delayed.
	The South West Water area spans 4,300 square miles and has the highest ratio of coastline to land of any region served by any water company in England and Wales. Change is required to address the clear disparity in water charges, and that change should require the whole country to share the burden of upkeep of a national treasure that is available for all to enjoy.
	We have lived with that inequality for far too long. In the remaining time left to the Government, they could still redress it. If not, an incoming Conservative Government will do so.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing this important debate. I apologise to him and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for arriving a little late. I have great respect for the House and for the Chair, so there is no excuse. It was my fault and I shall try to do better.
	I missed the first minute and a half, but I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon on securing a timely debate. Earlier today I met a cross-party delegation of Members to discuss water affordability in the south-west. The hon. Gentleman was not part of the delegation, which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). Those Members have met me before and they have advocated ceaselessly and tirelessly on behalf of their constituents. They have been championing the issue with diligence for some time, so I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is rallying to the cause.
	What is clear is that there is broad consensus in support of the Government's vision of fair, affordable and cost-reflective water charging that incentivises environmentally responsible behaviour while protecting vulnerable groups. The challenge is how we achieve that vision not just in the south-west, but across the country. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and his colleague on the Bench behind him are not content—it seems—to await the outcome of Anna Walker's report. When Anna Walker visited the south-west, my hon. Friends the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) and others met her to discuss matters and to listen to her. I understand that she will be going back to meet them again. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Devon will not fail on that occasion and that he will meet Anna Walker, listen to what she has to say and put his views to her so that her review can make considered, timely and measured recommendations for a way forward.
	I honestly forget which Government brought in water privatisation, but the correct way forward must be to look at the situation in a proper and considered way.

Hugo Swire: Had the Minister been in the Chamber at the outset of the debate, he would have heard me defend privatisation, which heralded a mammoth wave of new investment in water companies up and down the UK.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Privatisation has indeed driven up standards in different ways in different areas across the country and has led to a wide variety of performance—but good performance—among many companies, but that situation was not fixed at the moment of inception of privatisation. We did not know then about the long-term legacy for the people of the south-west. However, there may be a way forward and, even though the hon. Gentleman tempts me, I shall not pre-empt—as he did—the findings of Anna Walker's review. It will look at the evidence and will recommend dispassionate and carefully considered ways forward.
	We set out our vision in "Future Water: the Government's water strategy for England", which we published in February 2008. It sets out how we want the water sector to look by 2030, taking the long-term view, and the steps needed to take us there.
	An initiative announced in "Future Water" was an independent review of charging for household water and sewerage services. Anna Walker was thus appointed last August to lead the review, which issued a call for evidence last November—I assume that the hon. Member for East Devon has made a submission—and five regional workshops were held in late 2008 and early 2009 to discuss the issues, to develop an evidence base, which he will agree is important, and to explore solutions to the problems identified.
	One of those workshops was held in Plymouth, as I mentioned, and I am pleased that a number of hon. Members took the opportunity to participate. They will be delighted to know that Anna Walker has bravely pledged to return to the south-west after publication of the interim report shortly, to discuss her emerging recommendations.
	The review is looking at a range of very challenging issues, including the fairness of current methods of charging for water, the appropriate pace of metering in areas of water stress, the effectiveness of different types of tariff, affordability concerns and the needs of vulnerable customers.
	The interim report is expected in June, and the final report is expected later in the year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too disappointed if I do not pre-empt the report and what it might recommend in replying to him this evening. However, I am encouraged by the feedback that I have heard from people who have met Anna Walker and attended the roadshows, given the way that she has listened and taken on board the concerns, including those in the south-west, and is serious about addressing some of the issues she has identified.
	I shall turn to one aspect of the review—charging and metering. A key element of the Walker review is the fairness of different methods of charging for water. About one in three households in England and Wales is currently metered, although the figure is around 60 per cent in the south-west, as the hon. Gentleman will know. The rate of metering is increasing by a little over 2 per cent. per annum, mainly because customers are opting for meters to reduce their bills. However, many households are still paying for their water based on the 1970s rateable value of their home. That does not bear any relation to the amount of water used by the household and offers no incentive to use water wisely.
	Metering is the usual method of charging for water in most countries. We said in "Future Water" that we believe that near-universal metering will be needed in areas of water stress by 2030, and the Walker review will advise on the appropriate pace of metering . Outside areas of high water stress, the case for meters is not so clear cut, and we will see what Anna Walker says. Furthermore, as more and more householders switch to meters because they can save money, the bills rise for those left behind who do not switch, especially for large families on low incomes.
	Let me turn to affordability, which is a key element of the Walker review, as I know from my discussions with Anna Walker. Of course I recognise, as I hope we all do, that affordability is now a real issue for low-income households with a high essential use of water and for those living in areas with high water bills—notably, the south-west.
	Ofwat—the independent economic regulator of the water industry—has a duty to protect customers, including those on low incomes. The Government look to Ofwat to ensure that bills are no higher than they need to be, but South West Water's customers pay more for their water and sewerage services than other customers. That reflects not only the historical issues, but the substantial investment that South West Water has indeed undertaken since privatisation, the cost of which has fallen to the company's customers.
	Identifying the problems does not mean that there are easy solutions to the question of who pays. The Walker review is looking at that issue. However, none of the ideas previously mooted fully solves the problem in the interests of all customers. The Government have already taken action where there might be a risk to people's health because of difficulty in paying water bills. In fact, it was this Government who legislated to ban the disconnection of water supplies because customers cannot afford to pay their water bills.
	We have also put in place protection for vulnerable customers on meters through the WaterSure tariff, which caps the bills of households on means-tested benefits with three or more children under the age of 19 or a prescribed medical condition that requires a high use of water, at the average for that company. That encourages customers not to cut back on their use of water because of worries about the size of their bills. Some of those customers cannot reduce the amount of water that they use.
	The Walker review is considering whether the WaterSure scheme should be widened. It is also looking into whether more specific, closely targeted assistance is needed for low-income households in areas where bills are relatively high, such as the south-west. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Devon will be aware of the South West Water pilot study. It looked at ways to target and assess the effectiveness of water affordability assistance in the form of benefit entitlement checks, meter installation, water efficiency devices and advice to low-income households in the south-west region. I am pleased that South West Water has taken the initiative and is looking to provide that service to 7,500 of its customers, concentrating on those who are already in debt, and those who have difficulty paying their bills. Those measures can reduce such customers' bills by about £41 a year, and I welcome South West Water's efforts in that regard.
	The House is aware that Ofwat's 2009 review of water price limits—periodic review 2009, or PR09—is under way. It will determine water price limits for the period 2010 to 2015. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is undertaking an inquiry into PR09 alongside its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Government's draft Flood and Water Management Bill, which we published last month. Water companies submitted their final business plans to Ofwat in April. South West Water proposes an average increase in bills of 1.2 per cent. per annum, plus inflation, for the period 2010 to 2015.
	South West Water's final business plan includes proposals for a trial of rising block tariffs, which reward bill payers for saving water, and an extension of the company's WaterCare programme to help the customers who are most in need. Ofwat will now scrutinise those plans, and those of other water companies, before issuing draft determinations of water price limits for comment in July. Ofwat will issue the final determinations in November.

Oliver Letwin: If the Walker review proposes an equalisation scheme similar to that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), would the Minister, in principle, be willing to adjust the price formulae arrived at through the current price review?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to say that I rule nothing in and nothing out until we see the result of Anna Walker's deliberations, whereas the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that he has one course of action in mind, regardless of any repercussions or implications for other bill payers. We will consider the Anna Walker review carefully. We will comment on its interim findings to see on what issues we are in agreement. Hopefully, we will agree with all of it. We certainly want to take forward her recommendations seriously, and in a timely fashion, but unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we do not want to pre-empt her review. It would not be fair to Anna Walker for the Government to predetermine the outcome of her review.

Hugo Swire: I would like a simple yes or no: does the Minister not agree that it is manifestly unfair for 3 per cent. of the country's population to go on paying for 30 per cent. of the nation's beaches and clean water?

Huw Irranca-Davies: We would not have set up the review if we thought that there were no water affordability problems to solve. It took this Government to set up the review, and we did so in a serious and focused way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will avoid making pre-emptive policy decisions, such as those that he put forward tonight. They would pre-empt an independent, careful and thoughtful review, which has been taken out on the road and which has gathered evidence from around the country. To the best of my knowledge, it has not received input from the hon. Gentleman or the Conservative Front-Bench team as yet, but I am sure that it will do when Anna Walker presents her interim review. Knee-jerk reactions may or may not have merit—I rule nothing in, and nothing out—but I am content to wait for Anna Walker's interim report, and will then comment on it. It is in expert hands; I know of the evidence that she has gathered, and know of the response that she has had from people around the country, including in the south-west.
	I may have arrived a little late for the debate tonight, for which I have apologised to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for East Devon and his Front-Bench team, but neither I nor my hon. Friends have come late to the overall debate about affordability in the south-west and other issues that resonate around the country, which the Government take extremely seriously.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate. I strongly urge him to submit his views to Anna Walker's review, but not to pre-empt it. Surely the purpose of an independent review is to produce good, solid recommendations unimpaired by the slight bias of policy on the hoof, or politics on the hoof. Let us see what Anna Walker produces. I have every confidence in her. The Government will respond in due course to her and take forward the recommendations as we see fit.
	As has been pointed out to me not only in the hon. Gentleman's debate tonight, but regularly in meetings with cross-party colleagues who been advocates on the subject, there are issues in the south-west and elsewhere in the UK to be dealt with. That is why the Government commissioned an independent review.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.